tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54427921955685587142024-03-27T01:37:48.367-05:00Harpine's Thoughts about Public SpeakingWilliam Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.comBlogger594125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-42800441233267656192024-03-24T15:01:00.007-05:002024-03-24T21:13:46.669-05:00July 10, 2009: The Day When Hecklers Destroyed the Old Republican Party <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDIVDO71eHQEJOQH2rvgXsESF457J968fWxhwUj6bxusgvzOruSXCqkAz6XWBAHMrGFrYYeL38OXd37J_lcU_iIMGyiZs4ZuHKA4zztcoRO2bPQy88exkX8-fr9C-gNGaY5wnXYtphZEV7ZIb9AQrFe4RRf8vS-M0L_cClYuJIRVTn7PLeT5PmkXwk7fI/s899/Mike_Castle_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="899" data-original-width="747" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDIVDO71eHQEJOQH2rvgXsESF457J968fWxhwUj6bxusgvzOruSXCqkAz6XWBAHMrGFrYYeL38OXd37J_lcU_iIMGyiZs4ZuHKA4zztcoRO2bPQy88exkX8-fr9C-gNGaY5wnXYtphZEV7ZIb9AQrFe4RRf8vS-M0L_cClYuJIRVTn7PLeT5PmkXwk7fI/s320/Mike_Castle_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Mike Castle</span></td></tr></tbody></table>The Republican Party of old died on July 10, 2009, when Republican Congressional Representative Mike Castle made a routine campaign stop to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc">speak to a group of elderly voters</a> in Delaware. Castle was running for the United States Senate in a special election. A perfectly standard, old-school Republican, Castle came to discuss his usual platitudes. He then offered to answer questions. A woman in red raised her hand to ask Castle about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. She shouted:<br /><blockquote>“I want to know. I have a birth certificate here from the United States of America saying I’m an American citizen, with a seal on it, signed by doctor, with the hospital administrator’s name, my parents, my date of birth, the time and date. I’m gonna get back to January 20th and I want to know, why are you people ignoring his birth certificate?”</blockquote>A heckler yelled, “Yeah!” The crowd clapped and cheered. A heckler screamed, “he was born in Kenya.”<br /><br />The woman in red said that her father was a World War II veteran, a member of “the greatest generation.” She shrieked, “I want my country back.” More cheers and applause.<br /><br />Looking as if his eyes were glazed over by car lights, Castle calmly commented:<br /><blockquote>“He is a citizen of the United States. You’re referring to the president there, he is a...” </blockquote>Well, that was the end of that. The crowd stood, almost as a body, and loudly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.<br /><br />Castle checked his watch and tried to move on to another questioner.<br /><br />Someone soon posted a grainy cell phone video of the event on the Internet. The video went viral. Castle subsequently lost the Republican primary to an ill-equipped opponent, who in turn lost the general election.<br /><br />Evidently, various Barack Obama <a href="https://www.politifact.com/article/2009/jul/21/more-birther-announcements/">birth certificate conspiracy theories</a> had been circulating on talk radio, conservative television, and the Internet for weeks before Castle’s speech. The elderly, apparently all-white crowd had obviously absorbed the conspiracy theory’s <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/birther_b_725243">every bizarre detail</a>. In contrast, Castle had, as far as I can tell, never heard of the nonsense. In more general terms, Castle discovered that day that rational discourse has no standing in a speech community that is ruled by unreason.<br /><br />The birth certificate conspiracy theory did not prevent Barack Obama from being reelected in 2012. Nevertheless, Mike Castle’s explosive experience demonstrated the stunning extent to which unfounded beliefs, many of them conspiratorial and racist, have come to <a href="https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/11/10/the-conspiracy-theories-a-republican-must-believe-today/">dominate the Republican Party</a>. Donald Trump’s 2016 election was driven largely by <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-perpetuated-birther-movement-years/story?id=42138176">denying that Obama was born in the United States</a>. Since then, conspiracy theorists have defeated basic public health measures, called climate change a myth, and warned of the supposed Great Replacement of white people. The unfounded belief that Democrats stole the 2020 election was a predictable outgrowth. The nation’s real problems are increasingly ignored as millions of voters drown themselves in a sea of absurdity.<div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2017/02/avoid-giving-speech-at-roast-part-iii.html">Never Humiliate Your Opponent: Obama Ridiculed Trump's Conspiracy Theory</a></span><br /><br />Castle never had a chance. The crowd drowned out his response. They interrupted him by shouting, clapping, and bellowing the Pledge of Allegiance. Political discourse gave way to rude, boorish heckling. Castle’s timid attempt to introduce reality into his campaign appearance met, not only denial, but derision and disrespect. His crowd listened to only one perspective: a perspective founded entirely on lies. <br /><br />Castle’s appearance before what should have been a friendly crowd at a seemingly innocuous event marked a pivotal rhetorical shift. On that sad day, the Republican Party’s discussion of genuine issues gave way to conspiracy theories. The party shows no sign of recovery. Mike Castle’s political destruction at the hands of conspiracy theorists taught Republican politicians a lesson that they have not forgotten: reality no longer wins conservative hearts. After all, politicians are simple creatures who only want to win elections. Furthermore, the birth certificate conspiracy theory, the origin of all present-day conservative conspiracy theories, did not represent just one political smear. On July 10, 2009, Republican politicians learned to bow down to their party’s most despicable elements. Since that day, they face a harsh choice: support the conspiracy theorists, or face absolutely certain electoral defeat. Mike Castle’s disastrous campaign appearance ended Republican politicians’ willingness to embrace the truth. Heaven help us.</div><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/10/speeches-about-conspiracies-how-can-we.html">Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?</a></span><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/11/ok-boomer-chloe-swarbrick-teaches-us.html">"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a Heckler Down Flat</a><br /> </span><div><br /></div><div>_________________<br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. The origin of the birth certificate conspiracy theory is that Hawaii, like many other states, has computerized its vital records to improve efficiency and security. <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/">FactCheck.org</a> examined Obama’s birth certificate in August 2008. They concluded:<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as ‘supporting documents’ to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hawaii’s Director of Public Health and Governor both personally <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/1199887/hawaii-once-again-declares-obamas-birth-certificate-genuine/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=WE_DSA_New-Targeting_2024&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwnv-vBhBdEiwABCYQA5EEFmQwSaRb4bzuY14bkuHOA8aXBSsKVxxIS-vCAJwa2RRFV2yqWRoCdMwQAvD_BwE">inspected Obama’s birth records</a> and found that they were correct. Hawaiian newspapers had published a report of Barack Obama’s birth the next day. The birth certificate conspiracy theory lacks even the remotest merit. <br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">All the same, while truth desperately grasps for a tenuous foothold, birth certificate conspiracy theories <a href="https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/169724/americans-beliefs-obama-birth.aspx">continued to circulate</a> as late as 2023.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div></span><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>by William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Image: U.S. House of Representatives, via <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mike_Castle_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg">Wikipedia</a></i></span></div></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-15362196850803325602024-03-13T16:30:00.004-05:002024-03-13T20:55:56.788-05:00Rotary Club Speech "Four Way Test" Speech Contest <p><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 11pt;">With all the bad public speaking that politicians foist
on us every day, let’s celebrate the five </span><a href="https://www.coronadonewsca.com/news/coronado_island_news/chs-students-take-part-in-annual-rotary-speech-contest/article_d4fce0fe-dfdd-11ee-8238-23678d6057da.html" style="background-color: white; font-size: 11pt;">Coronado High School students</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 11pt;"> who
participated in their local Rotary Club’s Four Way Test speech contest. Two of
them advanced to the next level, while all five are to be praised.</span></p>
<p style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Each student gave a brief, prepared speech.
They applied the Rotary Club’s Four Way Test to assorted contemporary topics.
The students chose to talk about such varied subjects as artificial
intelligence, suicide among autistic teens, and climate change. Each speech
applied the Rotary Club’s Four Way Test.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="background: white;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">First, it is wonderful to see students learn to use
public speaking to talk about the important subjects and controversies that
face us today.</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Second, in a world where people often laugh about ethics,
all five speakers proudly focused on the Rotary Club's moral principles,
exemplified by the <a href="https://the4waytest.com/history-of-the-four-way-test/">Four Way Test</a>. Business executive and Rotarian Herbert J.
Taylor developed the Four Way Test to encourage honest business practices.
After much deliberation, he settled on these four principles:</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p>
<p style="background: white;"><span face=""Helvetica",sans-serif" style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"></span></p><blockquote><span face=""Helvetica",sans-serif" style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">1. Is it the TRUTH?</span><span face=""Helvetica",sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">2. Is it FAIR to all Concerned?</span><br />
<span style="background: white;">3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER
FRIENDSHIPS?</span><br />
<span style="background: white;">4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?</span></span></blockquote><span face=""Helvetica",sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="background: white;"></span></span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Rotarians today adopt the Four Way Test as their ethical
guide. The speech contest encourages young people to apply those simple ethical
principles to public issues. What better use can public speaking serve?</span></p><p style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> Congratulations to
all five students—and to the many, many other students who participate in
Rotary Club speech contests across the land. Well done!</span></p><p style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_______________</span></span></p><p style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"></span></p><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2020/07/congratulations-to-lincoln-east-high.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Congratulations to the Lincoln East High School Speech Team</span></a><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2017/04/school-speech-contests.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">School Speech Contests</span></a>
<p style="background: white;">_______________</p>
<p style="background: white;"><span style="color: black; font-family: arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">P.S. For several years, I served as a judge for Rotary
Club Four Way Test speech contests in northern Ohio. It was an inspiring duty.</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="background: white; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></p><p style="background: white; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">Copyright </i><i style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">© </i><i style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></p><p style="background: white;"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-52967176416995019192024-03-12T15:30:00.006-05:002024-03-13T20:44:16.893-05:00Biden's 2024 State of the Union Warned of Impending Calamity <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhVT-KOCW_-737chQNIThyphenhyphenaVgYrMIi-Yc0O6Nszr4X7dwOn-EPzKyCMp0U_QT4-97c3x8anjFUfywAuENhBxfKpziWuhIiyNy7N_s2BV8HYRqYZGCHAn7usbYrNDPJwfrKvD0BzZRyyJK35GvqBIEdL5-jZN8wjDnYJPvJN6bK6O3OidpP40AjVLkg4J4/s923/2024%20state%20of%20the%20union%20white%20house%20photo.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="923" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhVT-KOCW_-737chQNIThyphenhyphenaVgYrMIi-Yc0O6Nszr4X7dwOn-EPzKyCMp0U_QT4-97c3x8anjFUfywAuENhBxfKpziWuhIiyNy7N_s2BV8HYRqYZGCHAn7usbYrNDPJwfrKvD0BzZRyyJK35GvqBIEdL5-jZN8wjDnYJPvJN6bK6O3OidpP40AjVLkg4J4/w266-h260/2024%20state%20of%20the%20union%20white%20house%20photo.png" width="266" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Joe Biden, 2024 State of the Union</span></td></tr></tbody></table>A good introduction sets a speech’s tone. In his March 7, 2024 <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/president-joe-bidens-2024-state-of-the-union-address">State of the Union Address</a> to Congress, President Joe Biden warned the members—and the nation—that our way of life was under assault:<br /><blockquote>“… freedom and democracy are under attack at both at home and overseas at the very same time.” </blockquote>Biden painted a dark, dark picture: forces, domestic and foreign alike, threaten our way of life. Yes, a good introduction sets a speech’s tone. Beginning this speech, Biden laid out two historical analogies of times that the United States was attacked from without, and within. <br /><br />As they begin their presentations, good speakers want to gain the audience’s attention while pressing home their key point. Starting the speech, Biden first linked the United States of America’s current political crises with the onset of World War II:<br /><blockquote>“… in January 1941, Franklin Roosevelt came to this chamber to speak to the nation and he said, ‘I address you at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union.’” </blockquote>Biden’s startling historical analogy set the speech’s central message. In January 1941, Roosevelt had worried that neither Congress nor the nation understood the growing threat of totalitarian governments abroad. Like Roosevelt before him, Biden wanted to alert the nation of the growing catastrophe. Biden continued:<br /><blockquote>“Hitler was on the march, war was raging in Europe, President Roosevelt’s purpose was to wake up Congress and alert the American people that this was no ordinary time. Freedom and democracy were under assault in the world.” [italics added] </blockquote>Pushing for aid to Ukraine, Biden then carried his analogy to the present day:<br /><blockquote>“Overseas, Putin of Russia is on the march, invading Ukraine and sowing chaos throughout Europe and beyond. If anybody in this room thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine, I assure you he will not.”</blockquote>The war in Europe is not, Biden insisted, not our only threat. Making a second historical analogy, Biden warned:<br /><blockquote>“Not since President Lincoln in the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today. What makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack both at home and overseas at the very same time.”</blockquote>After all, January 2021 represented the first time in United States history that we failed to have a peaceful transfer of power.<br /><br />Biden’s goal was to “wake up Congress and alert the American people.” A mild, mealy-mouthed introduction would wake up no one.<br /><br />Did Congress wake up that night? Given the amount of heckling and cat- calling from the republican side, well, probably not. Maybe, however, Biden’s introduction may have been the opening salvo to break the United States out of its complacency and to remind us that we live in perilous times. I only wish that Biden had said these things a year ago. As the speech continued, Biden laid out the importance of aiding Ukraine, addressing the southern border, protecting women’s rights, and other key themes. <br /><br />Two historical analogies established Biden’s theme. Those starting analogies gave the speech a powerful framework. Biden referred to President Franklin Roosevelt and the onset of World War II, making a second reference to Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War. Both of those times plagued the United States with terrible danger. Biden alerted Congress and the nation alike that we face great dangers today. Are we listening? No one wants to think about oncoming calamity. Yet, if we face calamity unprepared, do we not choose to become lifeless victims?<br /><br />Did Biden overstate his introductory analogies? I don’t think so. If we forget history, we will relive history. World War II, the worst disaster in human history, did not break out in one gigantic attack. In fact, the long gap between the September 1939 invasion of Poland and Germany’s June 1940 assault on France was called “the phony war.” Yes, today, Ukraine seems a long way away. All the same, <i>today</i>, while Russia brutalizes Ukraine, does the United States confront growing danger? Do we need to wake up?<div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div>________________<br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Earlier Posts:</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/02/heckling-and-anti-heckling-in-joe.html">Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address</a></span></div><div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2024/01/trumps-speech-of-january-6-2023.html">Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"</a><br /><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/12/franklin-roosevelts-pearl-harbor-speech.html">Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time</a><br /><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2024/02/dr-margaret-chan-organized-her-public.html">Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success</a></span><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Copyright <i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© 2024 William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Image: Official White House photo, via Wikimedia Commons</span></i></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-46259652481229130302024-03-09T11:00:00.006-06:002024-03-09T11:06:23.914-06:00A Nice, Quiet Heckle<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPM-8-MVJ6c7v4rOdEAPmsfNUztXfhqa1wkTnsAs3JiFujp53lk0RTvYMmIaijcJe6uhdglYhHtgA4fTe8nO7LT0FNR7khGrwySR9ygzZ4FW5Nz68dFhpbtIwObsr7-SqJzC7N17A9EeZMDGh1cKNHzR8huzZ_CepSe4bLCkwEVhlTec1RZEk9g6DAovs/s553/James_Lankford_113th_Congress.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="553" data-original-width="452" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPM-8-MVJ6c7v4rOdEAPmsfNUztXfhqa1wkTnsAs3JiFujp53lk0RTvYMmIaijcJe6uhdglYhHtgA4fTe8nO7LT0FNR7khGrwySR9ygzZ4FW5Nz68dFhpbtIwObsr7-SqJzC7N17A9EeZMDGh1cKNHzR8huzZ_CepSe4bLCkwEVhlTec1RZEk9g6DAovs/w222-h272/James_Lankford_113th_Congress.jpg" width="222" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">James Lankford</span></td></tr></tbody></table>A gentle heckle is worth a thousand shouts! Senator James Lankford whispered a heckle and shook up the United States’ border controversy.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Biden Lashed Out at Republicans </b></span><br /><br />Making one of the first points in his March 7, 2024 <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/president-joe-bidens-2024-state-of-the-union-address">State of the Union speech</a>, President Joe Biden lashed out at the Republicans in Congress for defeating what appeared to be an extremely conservative border control bill. The bill was <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-kill-border-bill-sign-trumps-strength-mcconnells-waning-in-rcna137477">drafted</a> by Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Republican James Lankford, and Democrat Chris Murphy. Murphy agreed to a conservative border bill as a compromise to increase aid to Ukraine. Biden called the bill:<br /><blockquote>“…a bipartisan bill with the toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen.”</blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsCeBEKwJVhxjwMJ919wmGXO4BfcdPgrxl6yqdCxVu4rzc95UsxjE048vmQIMVKogfJCBbiMBFiu18oelt6vqQoPHIwe1wUnUvfOzpaliU_8tkqAMnXCZp9dPruHXjup5FbZjW3Z7kxzcEnxcII7FQykPje6QSEu8OoEK3LrGNezg1bbiKPNkNooT-FJc/s2048/biden%20state%20of%20the%20union%20430040852_995917192535244_7315828101740978688_n.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsCeBEKwJVhxjwMJ919wmGXO4BfcdPgrxl6yqdCxVu4rzc95UsxjE048vmQIMVKogfJCBbiMBFiu18oelt6vqQoPHIwe1wUnUvfOzpaliU_8tkqAMnXCZp9dPruHXjup5FbZjW3Z7kxzcEnxcII7FQykPje6QSEu8OoEK3LrGNezg1bbiKPNkNooT-FJc/s320/biden%20state%20of%20the%20union%20430040852_995917192535244_7315828101740978688_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Joe Biden, 2024 State of the Union</span></td></tr></tbody></table>The Republicans howled as if one body. (In fact, they heckled loudly throughout the speech.) Biden quickly ad-libbed:<br /><blockquote>“Oh, you don’t think so? Oh, you don’t like that bill, huh, that conservatives got together and said was a good bill? I’ll be darned. That’s amazing.”</blockquote>Biden detailed the bill’s provisions:<br /><blockquote>“1,500 more security agents and officers, 100 more immigration judges to help tackle a backload of 2 million cases, 4,300 more asylum officers, and new policies so they can resolve cases in 6 months instead of 6 years now.”</blockquote>Anyway, Biden pounded on and on in that vein. In the midst of Biden’s broadside attack, Lankford <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13172765/james-lankford-republican-senator-thats-true-state-union.html">quietly mouthed</a>:<br /><blockquote><b>“That’s true.”</b></blockquote>Reportedly, former president <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-kill-border-bill-sign-trumps-strength-mcconnells-waning-in-rcna137477">Donald Trump</a> had told Republicans to oppose the bill, presumably because he wanted to whine about the border during the presidential campaign.<br />__________<div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/02/heckling-and-anti-heckling-in-joe.html">Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address</a></span><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/08/read-it-says-mike-pence-serious-anti.html">"Read It," Says Mike Pence. Serious Anti-Heckling</a></span></div><div>__________</div><div><div><br /></div><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Poor Lankford </span></b><br /><br />Republicans had, for weeks, been turning against Lankford for helping to write the bill. Back in February, after the bill was roundly defeated, losing votes even from its strongest erstwhile supporters, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-deal-rejected-lankford-immigration-045fdf42d42b26270ee1f5f73e8bc1b0">Lankford commented</a>:<br /><blockquote>“I’m disappointed we didn’t get it done, ... I don’t know if I feel betrayed, because the issue is still there. It’s not solved.”</blockquote>Burned by his own party’s flip-flopping, Lankford’s pretty much inaudible heckle (it required lip reading) gave his understandable reaction to the betrayal. He and his colleagues had worked hard to write a strict border control bill, and to see his work upended so casually would plague even the most cynical politician.</div>__________</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-lost-art-of-heckling-how-to-heckle.html">The Lost Art of Heckling: How to Heckle and Not Sound Like an Idiot</a></span><div>__________</div><div> <br />Trying to salvage his evidently wrecked political career, Lankford promptly issued a <a href="https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press-releases/lankford-reacts-to-bidens-state-of-the-union-address/">lengthy statement</a> criticizing every part of Biden’s speech. Too little, too late. The Republicans have abandoned him, and he has become a pariah—for the unforgivable crime of momentary integrity. His brave, honest, whispered heckle expressed, however, an unusual, though achingly brief, display of spine and conscience in the United States of America’s increasingly polarized and dishonest political environment. <br /><br />And he didn’t need to shout.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><br /><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Copyright </i><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© </i><i>2024, William D. Harpine<br /><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Images: U.S. Congress, via <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Lankford_113th_Congress.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a>, public domain; </span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=995917195868577&set=pb.100063509179160.-2207520000">White House Facebook page</a>, public domain</span></i></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-4549761575734972732024-03-04T12:43:00.007-06:002024-03-04T21:53:20.545-06:00Singapore’s Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean Spoke for Cultural Unity and Cooperation <blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOucPwLd2zAGL2ktZr3KST36V-my69E7CK4rSAlOwrOP5Mt0-Gz7qsRpQ7UkzysGxBd62fxCjQ14ZlLBerrSzVwQirFntUv8MQBXMHXPu4VrukXhGIR9SVFOU4A9n9ZTdTBYaJTq4l4YL2FXJyqCWoAq9xomr3ho2f0I-Uq70P4aruwZk_QEcalSEXF50/s900/Teo_Chee_Hean_2.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="708" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOucPwLd2zAGL2ktZr3KST36V-my69E7CK4rSAlOwrOP5Mt0-Gz7qsRpQ7UkzysGxBd62fxCjQ14ZlLBerrSzVwQirFntUv8MQBXMHXPu4VrukXhGIR9SVFOU4A9n9ZTdTBYaJTq4l4YL2FXJyqCWoAq9xomr3ho2f0I-Uq70P4aruwZk_QEcalSEXF50/s320/Teo_Chee_Hean_2.jpg" width="252" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Teo Chee Hean</span></span></td></tr></tbody></table>“We see all the conflicts around the world, many of which are ignited by people who seek to <br />find divisions and differences arising out of race, language and religion.”</blockquote>On the March 3, 2024, at the Pergas Gema Kesyukuran, Singapore’s Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean gave a <a href="https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/SM-Teo-Chee-Hean-at-the-Pergas-Gema-Kesyukuran">speech about values</a>. He spoke about the value of religious diversity and freedom at the <a href="https://events.pergas.org.sg/gema-kesyukuran-2024">Pergas Gema Kesyukuran</a>, which is a major Muslim celebration in Singapore. It is a time of unity and gratitude. <br /><br />Teo’s speech supported the premises of unity, identification, and mutual acceptance. Unlike what we often hear in the United States of America, he supported religion in public life without placing any one religion in pre-eminence. Harmony, he insisted, is the opposite of seeking “divisions and differences.” Strength comes from mutual respect. Teo explained how such values underlie the nation’s success:<br /><blockquote>“We are really blessed in Singapore where all our communities have pledged to work together.”</blockquote><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Unity in Diversity </span></b><br /><br />Teo began by greeting the attendees in the Bahasa Melayu language, which is spoken by many Singaporean Muslims. He then stated his basic value, the value of tolerance and diversity:<br /><blockquote>“In Singapore, we live in a multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-cultural society. There is no religion which is the dominant or majority religion; so every religion is in the minority. This is a rather unique situation and makes us one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world.”</blockquote>Continuing, Teo told his audience about the continuing value of cooperation. Indeed, as Teo explained throughout his speech, Singaporeans have learned to work and serve together instead of seeking to divide. Teo claimed that this has led to a sense of national unity. He set forth how Singaporeans have learned to work and serve together, leading the public toward a sense of national unity:<br /><blockquote>“Our pioneer leaders have worked hard, with the support of our religious and community leaders, to promote unity among all communities and faiths. Singaporeans of all races and faiths now live together in HDB precincts, study together in national schools, perform National Service together, and work together.” </blockquote><div><br /></div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Tragic Events around the World </span></b><br /><br />As he spoke, the ongoing battle between Hamas and Israel was much on Teo’s mind. The suffering of Palestinian civilians in that conflict surely troubled his Muslim audience. So, while continuing to reject internal conflict, Teo reiterated that Singapore’s many ethnic and religious groups must continue to work in harmony:<br /><blockquote>“Not only must we be united as a nation, each of our communities must be united and make sure that the different parts work together.”</blockquote>Teo’s comments celebrated and praised Singapore’s Muslim leaders. At the same time, perhaps those same leaders recognized that Teo was guiding them toward a particular attitude. Teo may have been warning them, ever so gently, not to let the horrible Middle Eastern war drive Singaporeans apart. <br /><br />The Israeli-Gaza war has let to world-wide dissent. People throughout the world are shocked and horrified by the ongoing bloodshed of civilians. Given Singapore’s historical <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/singapore-virtual-jewish-history-tour">friendship with Israel</a>, Teo needed to handle the issue with delicacy. Teo reaffirmed Singapore’s commitment to a ceasefire, with the disagreements to be settled by negotiation rather than violence. Teo carefully avoided taking sides in the Israel-Hamas war, and instead urged Muslim leaders to continue to support unity. Indeed, Teo insisted that the war’s solution lay in negotiating a settlement under international law. He hinted that his audience members were, first and foremost, Singaporeans:<br /><blockquote>“We must not let disagreements and conflicts <i>elsewhere </i>in the world become sources of tension and division in <i>our </i>society. We act on principle, supporting what is right under international law and international humanitarian law, urging a ceasefire and for issues to be resolved in a fair and just way through negotiations.” [italics added]</blockquote>Teo then wished the attendees a peaceful and rewarding Ramadan.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Why Does Singapore Support Diversity? </span></b><br /><br />No doubt, Teo gave an idealized view. At the same time, one cannot overlook how sharply Teo’s rhetoric of diversity and unity clashes with comparable rhetoric in the United States. Donald Trump is literally campaigning on a platform of division, and the January 6, 2021 riots threatened our constitutional system. Simply contrast Teo’s public celebration of Muslims with the vicious reception that Muslims sometimes receive in the United States.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/07/donald-trumps-send-her-back-speech-made.html">Donald Trump's "Send Her Back" Speech Made Ilhan Omar a Flag Individual </a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/06/bennie-thompson-chairman-of-january-6.html">Bennie Thompson, Chair of the January 6, 2021, Committee, Spoke from Tradition</a></span><br /><br />Teo largely based his argument on history and culture. He argued that Singapore’s diversity—no one religion dominates the nation—protects it from religious tyranny or conflict. Perhaps the nation’s tremendous prosperity also helps. Still, values make a difference. Teo’s speech urged Singaporeans to continue to work together in harmony, to work for peace, and to cooperate for mutual success. <br /><br />All the same, Singapore’s harmony may come at a social price. For my part, I would not choose to live under Singapore’s one-party rule or its questionable <a href="https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/singapore">human rights record</a>.<br /> <br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/07/lincolns-first-inaugural-address-better.html" style="font-family: arial;">Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”</a><br /> <br />Compared with the United States, Singapore is a tiny nation, and it is entirely urban. Nevertheless, Teo based his values, not on asserting authoritarian leadership, but on a culture that seeks to work together. If nothing else, this should give us something to consider. So, Teo left his audience with an inspiring thought, that working together, sharing strengths, gives everyone a better future:<br /><blockquote>“… we can have a strong, progressive, modern Muslim community in Singapore, that thrive[s] for a better, brighter future with all our strengths combined. That is the target that we should achieve.”</blockquote><div>___________<div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. The Economist Intelligence Group’s <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/ethics-leadership/democracy-index">Democracy Index</a> ranks both Singapore and the United States as “flawed democracies,” with the United States’ score a bit better than Singapore’s. <a href="https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CONS1963?ProvIds=P14-#pr12-">Article 12</a> of Singapore's constitution specifically prohibits discrimination. Sadly, the world’s overall performance in the Democracy Index is declining, as corruption and powerful interest groups give people less of a feeling that they control their own governments. </span><br /> </div></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine<br /><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Copyright </i><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© 2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Image: <span style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122;">People’s Action Party of Singapore, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teo_Chee_Hean_2.jpg">via Wikimedia Commons, used by permission</a></span></i></span></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-91077727511284812932024-02-29T15:55:00.007-06:002024-02-29T19:25:28.049-06:00Words Make a Difference: Barbara Jordan Asked about "We the People"<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7ahtfYGv7TcH-OBUwclo8lzOL45xJukbk5T-6jNRe_WYDs9t6gqtXAqJWLalHwkF4gD8hOiIgwvIvzYNV47wEaLRd1i6lYLBtpe3vaL0wJeqaj4RGAO19YoZrLIGwrjxuHgNDvBVyYj-v_ZZF_5RuoEbkbnbJ8fYSZY0djIMo9yERrfie99QHT0DyG0E/s1083/Barbara_Jordan_on_House_Judiciary_Committee_during_Watergate_impeachment_hearings.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="740" data-original-width="1083" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7ahtfYGv7TcH-OBUwclo8lzOL45xJukbk5T-6jNRe_WYDs9t6gqtXAqJWLalHwkF4gD8hOiIgwvIvzYNV47wEaLRd1i6lYLBtpe3vaL0wJeqaj4RGAO19YoZrLIGwrjxuHgNDvBVyYj-v_ZZF_5RuoEbkbnbJ8fYSZY0djIMo9yERrfie99QHT0DyG0E/s320/Barbara_Jordan_on_House_Judiciary_Committee_during_Watergate_impeachment_hearings.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Barbara Jordan with the House Judiciary Committee</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Texas Congressional Representative <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm">Barbara Jordan</a> mused that, when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, she (a Black woman), was not included in “we the people.” <br /><br />Jordan, one of the first African American women in Congress, began her speech by establishing her identity as a citizen of the United States. Jordan spoke on July 25, 1974, during the impeachment hearings of the House Judiciary Committee. The committee was reviewing evidence that President Richard Nixon had, among other offenses, committed obstruction of justice during his re-election campaign—a felony under federal law. As the evidence became overwhelming, Nixon eventually resigned in disgrace to avoid certain removal from office. <br /><br />The issue with which Jordan began was, who is included in the Constitution’s phrase, “we the people?” Who belongs to “the people” of the United States? Yet, today, United States citizens still ask who counts as “we the people. “The answer should be obvious. Unfortunately, it is not always obvious. <br /><br />To understand Jordan’s answer, the Constitution of the United States expresses a value: government arises from the people. The right to govern does not come from aristocrats or the rich and powerful, but from the people themselves. Sadly, however, our nation has always struggled to ask, “who are the people?” Do Black people count as people? Japanese Americans? Mexican Americans? Native Americans? Immigrants?<br /><br />By the Constitution’s stated values, Jordan should have been included all along among “we, the people.” Sadly, we all know otherwise.<br /><br />So, Jordan began by quoting the Preamble:<br /><blockquote>“Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: ‘We, the people.’ It’s a very eloquent beginning. But when <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archives.gov%2Fexhibits%2Fcharters%2Fconstitution_transcript.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cb29a057b019744e9665808dc39691c69%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638448370808882298%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eLQUMX7QZQCbEjHrHYkjfsospfqArwMDdGbeveHIbwU%3D&reserved=0">that document</a> was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that ‘We, the people.’ I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in ‘We, the people.’”</blockquote>Jordan’s wry humor—“just left me out by mistake”—reminded everyone how easily values and practice can function separately. She reminded the committee, <i>in fact, reminded the nation</i>, of the long struggle for freedom. All the same, on that day in 1974, Jordan (who was once omitted from “we, the people”) now sat in judgment of the nation’s wayward president. She supported the Constitution that once excluded her. She spoke against any assault against the Constitution’s protections:<br /><blockquote>“Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.”</blockquote>Thus, Jordan established her credibility, her bona fides, to investigate the conduct of the President of the United States.<br /><br />As rhetorical theorist <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Motives-Kenneth-Burke/dp/0520015460/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2SL3LJRGDGARA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RSFGkBtQyA8tmaIT15s0mIbyBW6IXeEcLWZkw6ILLahTfrlepYK7w0YMqsCxTQwf6tDYKm6FcnW4gk2D54kKwvOv4u3lbYpbmuC_OmiOvFiDDDwwUkPgIwM3HPo_OHDh23uM1kR7XOvCA07RfHqQE5F8feaAKDJJKhPE9siVycs.Kcu8eAgFTswgmhuSRxWEQiKbFiDrCULolhebIL8IzMw&dib_tag=se&keywords=burke+rhetoric+of+movies&qid=1709242267&sprefix=burke+rhetoric+of+movite%2Caps%2C212&sr=8-1">Kenneth Burke</a> points out, our sense of identity, the question of who and what we identify ourselves with, underlies all persuasion. Jordan's stark humor and statement of utter loyalty establish, first and foremost, her identification. She was one of “we, the people,” fully committed to the Constitution, and ready to investigate and pass judgment on a president who threatened constitutional government.<br /><br />Jordan then recited Nixon’s crimes, his offenses against constitutional government. What mattered most, however, is that she began by defining who she, Barbara Jordan, was. Her question, however, remains: do we still include everyone in “we, the people?” <div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;">_______________</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Earlier Posts</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/11/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html">Adam Schiff's Opening Statement on Impeachment Laid Out a Case and Pre-Empted Republican Arguments</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/02/what-they-demand-is-your-christianity.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">“What, They Demand, Is Your Christianity?" Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div>_______________<br /><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Copyright </i><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© 2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Image: U. S. House of Representatives, via <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barbara_Jordan_on_House_Judiciary_Committee_during_Watergate_impeachment_hearings.png">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></i></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-20379662384317444512024-02-26T09:05:00.005-06:002024-02-27T08:06:59.975-06:00Joe Biden Told the Governors that American Can Accomplish Anything: A Look at Audience Adaptation<p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp62GdOoP_Pktc4S_NUNYUl14z748hTNEW-oQtiIs3K8XEiglILRQgbC7GSeTSZnLkONhVn-uMNa7wlDAQm3obxwUydzqj0lUF7B8_bz0-8BjP4grIGEbu5gE0Q_k-_ODBI3zh__FNQMCqc4jUcXAQ_aawn4VOsb8ohlbUy8AMu1ND8iGSn1bXlbY21pM/s1707/Joe%20Biden,%20White%20House%20photo.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="1707" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp62GdOoP_Pktc4S_NUNYUl14z748hTNEW-oQtiIs3K8XEiglILRQgbC7GSeTSZnLkONhVn-uMNa7wlDAQm3obxwUydzqj0lUF7B8_bz0-8BjP4grIGEbu5gE0Q_k-_ODBI3zh__FNQMCqc4jUcXAQ_aawn4VOsb8ohlbUy8AMu1ND8iGSn1bXlbY21pM/w302-h227/Joe%20Biden,%20White%20House%20photo.jpg" width="302" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Joe Biden, White House Photo</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><blockquote><i>“I’m more optimistic about this nation’s future than I’ve ever been.”</i></blockquote><p></p>So said United States President Joe Biden in <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/23/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-national-governors-association-winter-meeting/">a brief speech</a> to the National Governor’s Association Winter Meeting, delivered in the White House East Room on February 23, 2024. He offered a message of pride and optimism. He adapted to his audience to seek unity, encourage joint effort, overcome disagreements, and solve problems.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Biden Reached Out to His Audience </span></b><br /><br />Biden’s audience was an assemblage of state governors. Many of them were Republicans, while Biden is a Democrat. Unlike Congress, however, governors actually need to get things done. They are, after all, responsible for the administration of their own state governments. The cycle of “no, no, no” that often dominates legislatures doesn’t work for governors, because the public looks to them to administer their states’ affairs. That feature of governorship can make them more amenable to a productive message.<br /><br />So, Biden said:<br /><blockquote>“Governors know the measure of success isn’t how many partisan points we score. It’s: Did we fix the problem? Did we fix the problem?”</blockquote>Biden pointed out that, although people can argue about policies, they can still agree on common goals: <br /><blockquote>“We disagree on how to fix the problem many times. We’re all here for one reason: to fix the problems — to get things done for families, for communities, for the country.’”</blockquote><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The United States Has Great Capacity for Good </span></b><br /><br />Can the nation fix those problems? In a political atmosphere of negativity, Biden stressed that the nation can, indeed, accomplish its goals:<br /><blockquote>“I mean this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake. Nothing, nothing, nothing is beyond our capacity.<br /> <br /> “When have we ever set a national goal we failed? When? When have we ever come out of a — not come out of a crisis stronger than we went into the crisis?”</blockquote>Biden had a point. Indeed, we all learned in high school that President Franklin Roosevelt made the United States of America the <a href="https://detroithistorical.org/learn/encyclopedia-of-detroit/arsenal-democracy">“arsenal of democracy</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">” </span>in World War II. The <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-international-role-of-the-us-dollar-post-covid-edition-20230623.html">Federal Reserve</a> points out that “the dollar remains by far the dominant reserve currency. The United States’ dollar is the world’s reserve currency.” As our nation sinks into rancor, helplessness, and anxiety, Biden offered confidence and hope. He emphasized that the United States of America, a nation of boundless ability, is still the world’s leader. <br /><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/12/franklin-roosevelts-four-freedoms.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech, a Lesson in Positive Justice</span></a><br /><br /> <br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Are We Working Together? </span></b><br /><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWSSXXl92KqxOhh03m_O_nONG2DUwCn0u_8DBHeg535_ZDIZInv6r1nQDqzkvd5Tsnbx03i7wR_lAo8OtJIyHIxV0CprnJzyd2q37ErSr-uhpQIRqvsVCzo_zGUdrkS9DWX3ExLrcxDdj7298ThAzVBrRzIvqw9dq4Fo-tnXB9JnBUMcxC2qss6LTUahc/s1071/bidien%20governors%20association%202024.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="523" data-original-width="1071" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWSSXXl92KqxOhh03m_O_nONG2DUwCn0u_8DBHeg535_ZDIZInv6r1nQDqzkvd5Tsnbx03i7wR_lAo8OtJIyHIxV0CprnJzyd2q37ErSr-uhpQIRqvsVCzo_zGUdrkS9DWX3ExLrcxDdj7298ThAzVBrRzIvqw9dq4Fo-tnXB9JnBUMcxC2qss6LTUahc/s320/bidien%20governors%20association%202024.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Joe Biden Speaking to Governors Association</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />We might never all agree: the United States is a huge, diverse nation. Can we nevertheless find common cause? Biden reminded us that success requires joint effort:<br /><blockquote>“Nothing is beyond our capacity if we work together. So, let’s keep working together. Because you’re the best hope we have — the governors.” </blockquote>That is a big <i>if</i>: “if we work together.” Biden reminded us that we can never accomplish our goals if we are constantly tearing each other apart. As I look around, I still see most Republicans denying something so simple and obvious as the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html">2020 election results</a>. The Republicans can’t even manage to vote in favor of their <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html">own border control bill</a>. Biden did not ask the governors to agree with him; he asked them to work together toward common goals. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Getting People to Listen? <br /></span></b><br />This all leads me to wonder why Americans rarely listen to Biden’s simple, obvious lesson—the need to work together? In part, probably, old ethnic and economic disparities rise against us, again and again. In part, some members of Congress seem more beholden to narrow interests than to the nation’s good. <br /><br />What is to be done? First, Biden wisely chose an audience of governors. Public speaking is all about the audience. Temporarily bypassing Congress, Biden reached out to an audience that needs to accomplish things. He focused on the governors’ shared need to get things done.<div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/05/bidens-speech-at-ford-rouge-electric.html">Biden's Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Progress</a></span><div> <br />Second, however, Biden and his surrogates simply need to get the message out more often. An audience of governors is great—vital—central—but not enough. Many people too easily shrug off a message of cooperation and goodwill, welcome though it is. Still, Biden sits in what President Theodore Roosevelt called “the bully pulpit.” Part of sitting in the bully pulpit is just to climb out of the background and address the public, over and over, to send the welcome message far and wide. That is, as I wrote earlier, how President William McKinley persuaded the public to adopt the peace treaty that ended the Spanish American War. If President Biden has a good message, and I think he does, he needs to pound it into the nation’s thoughts. <br /><br />Overall, Biden suggested simple attitudes: working together. Seeking common cause. Negotiating differences. Working for the whole nation, not just a tiny piece of it. Adopt those simple attitudes, President Biden implied, and no one can stop us.<br /><br />Was he right? Or is it too late? Post your thoughts in the comments.<div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Copyright </i><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">© 2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Images: Official White House photo; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaLDusLft0">White House YouTube page</a></span></i></div></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-6142981237118745402024-02-22T11:28:00.002-06:002024-02-22T12:06:59.194-06:00Harry Belafonte: Art and the Human Soul<blockquote>“Some who’ve controlled institutions of culture and commentary have at times used their power to not only distort truth but to punish the truth-seekers…. And on occasion, I have been one of its targets.” </blockquote>So said actor and singer Harry Belafonte in a <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/harrybelafontejeanhersholtaward.htm">November 8, 2014 speech</a> in Hollywood, California while accepting the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. He spoke at the sixth Governors Awards ceremony. Belafonte spoke of art’s ongoing struggle, for and against racism. He reminded us that art has power, and that art can direct its power either to good or ill. He reminded us of the resolution needed to challenge injustice. Using the basic organizational method of <a href="https://www.lincoln.edu/academics/academic-departments/languages-and-literature-department/rhetorical-patterns/rhetorical-patterns-1.html">comparison and contrast</a>, Belafonte showed that art changes lives, and that artists make a choice when they use that power. As Black History Month continues in February 2024, let us remember Belafonte’s courageous insight. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The Birth of a Nation: Art for Evil Power </span></b><br /><br />So, Belafonte began by talking about the powerful 1915 film, <i>The Birth of a Nation</i>. Belafonte began by noting the film’s astonishing creativity:<br /><blockquote>“By all measure this cinematic work was considered the greatest film ever made.” </blockquote>Of course, we all know that <i>The Birth of a Nation</i> offered a radically conservative view of the American Civil War and celebrated the rise of the murderous Ku Klux Klan.<br /><br />To Belafonte, <i>The Birth of a Nation</i> treated art’s awesome power to affect human behavior. After Americans watched the movie’s stunningly inaccurate and immoral version of Confederate history, violent anti-Black race riots swept across the United States of America:<br /><blockquote>“The power of moving pictures to impact on human behavior was never more powerfully evidenced than when, after the release of this film, American citizens went on a murderous rampage. Races were set one against the other. Fire and violence erupted. Baseball bats and billy clubs bashed heads. Blood flowed in streets of our cities; and lives were lost.”</blockquote>Belafonte pointed out that President Woodrow Wilson was one of <i>The Birth of a Nation’s</i> biggest fans. Wilson’s powerful endorsement made <i>The Birth of a Nation</i>, with all of its racist tropes, even more persuasive to a gullible public:<br /><blockquote>“The film also gained the distinction of being the first film ever screened at the White House. The then-presiding President Woodrow Wilson openly praised the film, and with the power of this presidential anointing, validated the film’s brutality and its grossly distorted view of history.”</blockquote><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Tarzan, the "Porcelain Adonis"</b></span><div><br /><i>The Birth of a Nation</i> was not the only racist film in the United States’ history. Belafonte remarked on his 1935 viewing of a Tarzan movie. He was stunned by Tarzan’s supposed racial superiority:<br /><blockquote>“Tarzan was a sight to see. This porcelain Adonis, this white liberator, who could speak no language, swinging from tree to tree, saving Africa from the tragedy of destruction by a black indigenous population.”</blockquote>Recognizing movies’ power to alter racial attitudes, Belafonte remarked on the brazen, anti-African racism that Tarzan conveyed:<br /><blockquote>“Through this film, the virus of racial inferiority, of never wanting to be identified with anything African, swept into the psyche of its youthful observers. And for the years that followed, Hollywood brought abundant opportunity for black children in their Harlem theaters to cheer Tarzan and boo Africans.”</blockquote>To broaden things out, Belafonte noted the broad racism of American filmmaking:<br /><blockquote>“Native American[s], our Indian brothers and sisters, fared no better. And at the moment, Arabs ain’t lookin’ so good.”</blockquote><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgzcqoqbaVjlD4pEsGVlQFpCPrFWjODHR2uKYRKBNTe30F8an8ltxrh1JtqgdzLfO7CJwROCuAIcB-KzYBphWcIie61KOrPbDigwzgzcVUJTG-r0qO-Tio0s_bq9wLnjqoHaw3Q7v3RL56amVyhkSxsESpx12ZnWx5BnnQf3eNzyh-1r9htn7sl7DNCCg/s899/617px-Harry_Belafonte_singing_1954.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="899" data-original-width="617" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgzcqoqbaVjlD4pEsGVlQFpCPrFWjODHR2uKYRKBNTe30F8an8ltxrh1JtqgdzLfO7CJwROCuAIcB-KzYBphWcIie61KOrPbDigwzgzcVUJTG-r0qO-Tio0s_bq9wLnjqoHaw3Q7v3RL56amVyhkSxsESpx12ZnWx5BnnQf3eNzyh-1r9htn7sl7DNCCg/s320/617px-Harry_Belafonte_singing_1954.jpg" width="220" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: x-small;">Young Harry Belafonte Singing</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Art and the Moral Encounter </span></b><br /><br />Films like <i>The Birth of a Nation</i> and <i>Tarzan the Fearless</i> inspired too many viewers toward racism and evil. However, to Belafonte, they were springboards (reactions, maybe) to moral rebellion:<br /><blockquote>“It was an early stimulus to the beginning of my rebellion, rebellion against injustice and human distortion, and hate. How fortunate for me that the performing arts became the catalyst that fueled my desire for social change.”</blockquote>Belafonte cited his mentor, Paul Robeson, and authors Langston Hughes, Maya Angelou, and James Baldwin, among others, as artists who “inspired me” and became his “moral compass.<br /><br />This led Belafonte to quote Robeson that "Artists are the gatekeepers of truth. They are civilization’s radical voice."<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Is Art Now Speaking in a More Inspiring Voice? </span></b><br /><br />Belafonte expressed his gratitude that he had lived long enough to see more positive filmmaking. Talking about recent films, he explained that: <br /><blockquote>“…today’s cultural harvest yields a sweeter fruit: <i>Defiant Ones, Schindler’s List, Brokeback Mountain, 12 Years a Slave</i>, and many more.”</blockquote>Belafonte emphasized the power that art has to help us understand human nature:<br /><blockquote>“… all of this [is] happening at the dawning of technological creations that would give artists boundless regions of possibilities to give us deeper insights into human existence.” </blockquote>So, overall, Belafonte condemned the harsh racism of past filmmaking, while praising the deeper, more discerning films that have appeared recently. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">A Call to Moral Action </span></b><br /><br />Concluding, Belafonte urged artists of every genre to become “visionaries” to uplift people’s souls and to influence the world to do what is good, to see the better side of human nature:<br /><blockquote>“Perhaps we, as artists and as visionaries for what’s better in the human heart and the human soul, could you influence citizens everywhere in the world to see the better side of who and what we are as a speci[es].”</blockquote>What lessons can we learn from Belafonte’s speech? Yes, we learn brilliant artists can speak either for evil or for good, according to their preferences. Belafonte’s opening example, <i>The Birth of a Nation</i>, reminded us that art can shape reality and human behavior, equally for evil or for good. How will artists exercise their passions? That is a moral choice.<br /><br />How can we understand Belafonte’s rhetorical approach? Belafonte made his point by contrasting the wickedness of two powerful movies against the hopefulness of a coterie of great artists. We can see the good most clearly only after evil's persuasive power has shocked us to the core. </div><div><br /></div><div>Was Belafonte too optimistic? He rightly pointed out newer films that take a broader, more humane perspective. Nevertheless, Tarzan has not disappeared from the screen, while female white goddesses like Sheena, Queen of the Jungle sometimes arise to rescue central Africa. I also wonder about 2005's <i><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/">Lord of War</a>. </i>Although that film places the onus on white Americans and Europeans, it continues the view that Black Africans live amidst unrelieved ignorance and corruption. So, I have not become totally optimistic. </div><div><br />In this speech, Belafonte commissioned the nation’s—the world’s—artists to use their power to bring out the best that humanity has to offer. He documented a problem, and a promising solution followed. He warned us about the evil that art can produce, and yet he balanced that warning with hope. </div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><br />________________<div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Remembering Black History Month, here are a few of my previous posts about historical African American Speakers: </b></span></div><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right">Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right</a></span><div><br /></div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2024/01/martin-luther-king-jrs-speech-about.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Mountains</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/03/fannie-lou-hamer-sick-and-tired-of.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Fannie Lou Hamer, "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired," Gave a Voting Rights Speech in Narrative Style</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="Stokely Carmichael in 1966: Civil Rights Laws Enforce Rights that Already Exist">Stokely Carmichael in 1966: Civil Rights Laws Enforce Rights that Already Exist</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_26.html">Tyler Perry at the 2019 BET Awards: "Helping Someone Cross" as a Metaphor for Reaching Out to Help</a></span><div><br />________________<br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQXVjY1oqRo">Harry Belafonte and Petula Clark</a> caused a brief dustup in 1968 when they rendered a powerful duet of Clark's antiwar song "Path of Glory" on television; Clark touched Belafonte on the arm. This interracial touching aroused great offense in some quarters. Clark refused to delete the scene. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Thanks to <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/harrybelafontejeanhersholtaward.htm">AmericanRhetoric.com</a> for publishing a transcript of this great speech.</span><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">How racist was <i>The Birth of a Nation</i>? Well, in one series of scenes, the audience sees the Reconstruction-era South Carolina legislature dominated by African American lawmakers who drink moonshine on the legislative floor, stand up to speak while chewing on a chicken leg, and intimidate white women in the gallery. Is that racist enough?<br /><br />The <a href="https://www.imdb.com/list/ls058415951/">Tarzan movie</a> that Belafonte viewed in 1933 was presumably <i>Tarzan the Fearless</i>, maybe <i>Tarzan the Ape Man</i>. Both films depict outrageously stereotypical views of Africans. </span><br /></div></div></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright <span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">© </span>2024 by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i>Image: Library of Congress, <a href="https://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/van/item/2004662587/">Carl Van Vechten collection</a>,</i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i> public domain, not to be altered in any way</i></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-48811455722967221492024-02-20T11:58:00.007-06:002024-02-20T15:47:10.816-06:00Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success<blockquote>“Public health constantly struggles to hold infectious diseases at bay, to change lifestyle behaviors, and to find enough money to do these and many other jobs.” </blockquote>As <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretchan69thworldhealthassembly.htm">Dr. Margaret Chan</a>, Director-General of the World Health Organization spoke at the 69th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 23, 2016, she demonstrated how important organization is in public speaking. Dr. Chan, a physician of joint Chinese and Canadian nationality, illustrated just how crucial the organizational structure of a speech is to informing and persuading people.<br /><br />Her speech is still timely today, as <a href="https://www.wpr.org/health/covid-19-court-decisions-public-resistance-have-tied-hands-public-health">public health authorities</a> at this very moment struggle to make the public accept basic public health measures such as vaccination and social distancing to cope with endemic and deadly COVID-19 and RSV viruses that devastate the population. Indeed, many nations, including the United States, continue to suffer from needless public health disasters.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Chan Used Organization to Persuade the Audience </span></b><br /><br />Her speech’s organizational structure brilliantly offered the audience positive thoughts about public health, which, in turn, gave a positive approach to the great public health challenges that lay ahead. She started with public health’s recent accomplishments, warned of current public health threats, and finally returned to a hopeful approach to public health. Her speech structure helped show that, since public health has triumphed in the past, we can believe that it can help us in the future.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Chan Stated the Problem </span></b><br /><br />Starting her speech, Dr. Chan briefly noted that public health faces an endless battle for resources and public acceptance. In her speech, she made a two-fold point: public health measures have greatly improved human lives across the world, and yet the changing world landscape poses increasingly dire public health threats.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Chan Reviewed Public Health’s Triumphs </span></b><br /><br />Dr. Chan immediately moved to public health triumphs: “Sometimes,” she said, “we need to step back—we need to step back and celebrate.” <br /><br />Yes, she was right. Since public health has faced constant public and political pushback—for centuries—it is important to look at what has been accomplished. Wisely, Dr. Chan talked only about the most recent public health accomplishments. She began with the <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/millennium-development-goals-(mdgs)">Millennium Development Goals</a>, a United Nations program to wipe out extreme poverty, reduce the deaths of young children, improve childbirth safety, and fight endemic contagious diseases, while improving the environment. These were truly ambitious goals. Dr. Chan said:<br /><blockquote> “Commitment to the Millennium Development Goals brought focus, energy, creative innovation, and above all money to bear on some of the biggest health challenges that marred the start of this century.” </blockquote><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmdkSiaE5jPMiZxLqK5WSvORiwnrcKYTLvvC1b8Vm2s9ujtGlhT0DewC9CIDzJnqqaHA5MCMP-f2gOrII7Xjk-I50UNRgGI-aKfwFSO4Jatbx38VWol5c-11oetzoYAdUdFP9YqgB6H-mROZdWUUgXkjcKIACSrZD_BfGl6tOZR5Fi3_gxWeto9xJN7f4/s1200/malaria,%20wikimedia.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="824" data-original-width="1200" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmdkSiaE5jPMiZxLqK5WSvORiwnrcKYTLvvC1b8Vm2s9ujtGlhT0DewC9CIDzJnqqaHA5MCMP-f2gOrII7Xjk-I50UNRgGI-aKfwFSO4Jatbx38VWol5c-11oetzoYAdUdFP9YqgB6H-mROZdWUUgXkjcKIACSrZD_BfGl6tOZR5Fi3_gxWeto9xJN7f4/w282-h194/malaria,%20wikimedia.jpg" width="282" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Delivery of Malaria Treatment</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Dr. Chan quickly focused on the resulting dramatic reductions in needless deaths:<br /><blockquote>“We can celebrate the 19,000 fewer children dying every day, the 44% drop in maternal mortality, and the 85% of tuberculosis cases that are successfully cured. <br /><br />“Africa in particular can celebrate the 60% decline in malaria mortality, especially since the African Leaders Malaria Alliance, supported by partners, did so much to make this happen.” </blockquote>These are stunning accomplishments from the multinational public health measures. Indeed, seeking to gain increased support for public health, Dr. Chan forcefully reminded the audience that cooperative efforts have brought so much that is good.<div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2020/08/whos-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-spoke.html">WHO's Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Spoke for Public Health in a Positive Way During His Coronavirus Briefing</a></span><div><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The Need for International Efforts </span></b><br /><br />In the modern world, Dr. Chan insisted, public health threats rarely remain in any single region. Worldwide effort is therefore the only solution. She pointed out that air pollution drifts across the world, while superbugs travel with international commerce, and unhealthy foods are marketed internationally. The effects can be striking:<br /><blockquote>“Few health threats are local anymore. And few health threats can be managed by the health sector acting alone.” </blockquote>Dr. Chan then focused on the hardest issue of all, the human-caused disasters that spread poor health across the world:<br /><blockquote>“As the international community enters the era of sustainable development, the global health landscape is being shaped by 3 slow-motion disasters: a changing climate, the failure of more and more mainstay antimicrobials, and the rise of chronic noncommunicable diseases as the leading killers worldwide.”</blockquote>Refusing to call these disasters the natural consequence of human growth or biological evolution, Dr. Chan instead reminded the audience that these public health concerns were the consequences of short-term economic policies:<br /><blockquote>“These are not natural disasters. They are man-made disasters created by policies that place economic interests above concerns about the well-being of human lives and the planet that sustains them.” </blockquote>For example, she noted that food companies make more money from processed foods than from fresh produce, and that fossil fuels generate great wealth in producing nations. Yet, as she had shown, these economic factors contribute to ongoing public health failures.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Yet, Let Us Move Forward </span></b><br /><br />Still, consistent with her positive theme, Dr. Chan concluded her speech, not by wallowing in the horrors of modern public health failures, but by, once again, pointing to the ways in which advanced public health can continue to save millions upon millions of human lives:<br /><blockquote>“WHO, together with its multiple partners, is poised to save many more millions of lives. I ask you to remember this purpose as we go through an agenda that can mean so much for the future.”</blockquote><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The Organization Theme </span></b><br /><br />This speech represented a psychological approach to rhetorical organization. The speaker began by praising public health's massive recent accomplishments. It was her deliberate rhetorical choice to emphasize, not historical triumphs like the polio vaccine, but the most recent triumphs in overcoming disease. The bulk of her speech revealed the public health problems that the world faces today—problems exacerbated by poor international policy decisions. She did not shy away from problems that her own nation, China itself, had produced, like excessive burning of fossil fuels. She ended on a positive note, urging the audience to move forward.<br /><br />Public health depends on public attitudes. Today, my own nation, the United States of America, has been ravaged by the novel coronavirus, while much of its population succumbs to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-44752-w">bizarre conspiracy theories,</a> refusing to accept vaccination and other basic public health measures. The United States ranks near the bottom of the industrialized world for maternal and child mortality, and, worse, we seem to be declining. Shockingly, <a href="https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/nov/maternal-mortality-maternity-care-us-compared-10-countries">The Commonwealth Fund</a> notes that, “The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries.” The biggest problem in public health is communication and persuasion—not science (the scientists are doing their jobs).</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2020/04/speakers-need-research-donald-trump.html">Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus</a></span></div><div><br />Dr. Chan’s message was just one speech to one audience, but she modeled how to overcome our thought barriers and improve public health.<br /><br />In a more general way, public speakers often underestimate how important it is to organize a speech psychologically. In this case, Dr. Chan led her audience through a psychological process: past triumphs, present despair, and (ending with a call to action), future triumphs. She showed her audience that there was a way to overcome the massive public health threats that the world faces. Did the world listen in 2016? Are we listening today?<br /><br /><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">By William D. Harpine</span></i></div><br />_______________</div><div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. Dr. Margaret Chan has been involved in occasional political controversies. That might be inevitable for someone of her prestige and influence, yet the public often focuses on political issues while ignoring the massively important lessons that she was trying to teach. <br /><br />Also, while Dr. Chan gave such a thoughtful speech, American public health officials have, in recent years, done a mostly terrible job of communicating with the public. I’ll see if I can write about that in a future post.<br /><br />Thanks to the good people at <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanrhetoric.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0db1f5fe7b4f4bb396e208dc3238f078%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638440467349714063%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tBufKjZ4Hbs%2FzzF8zPRa16zkV%2Bx46MeM0RatDKcW1%2Bw%3D&reserved=0">AmericanRhetoric.com</a>, a website founded by my late classmate Dr. Martin J. Medhurst, for finding and posting this important speech.</span></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright 2024, William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Image: United States Department of Health and Human Services, public domain, via <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Health_Worker_treats_child_(19165929668).jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></i></div><br /> </div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-37995445425953336522024-02-13T16:38:00.009-06:002024-02-14T10:05:50.043-06:00Kamala Harris: "Investing in the Potential and the Greatness”<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0emy4FrqlbUC95kA7kl70zo8Nfyz0KXoyCxcTxwYzkuPb8UMsJuZTjrxf4mQz6DbLCscuoWOBV1ed8FEUC-NnvgnJKnTIsTlu7q2YR7oHi-xSCjSonSOGFZzvF28QQmYSw5-jQJG-nSbtuWGbnPchqZ0ya8bKYKQMiSFQ6DQIqThPwCWmOaiTKs-OhCM/s306/kamala%20harris%20official%20photo.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="306" data-original-width="220" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0emy4FrqlbUC95kA7kl70zo8Nfyz0KXoyCxcTxwYzkuPb8UMsJuZTjrxf4mQz6DbLCscuoWOBV1ed8FEUC-NnvgnJKnTIsTlu7q2YR7oHi-xSCjSonSOGFZzvF28QQmYSw5-jQJG-nSbtuWGbnPchqZ0ya8bKYKQMiSFQ6DQIqThPwCWmOaiTKs-OhCM/w192-h267/kamala%20harris%20official%20photo.jpg" width="192" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kamala Harris</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Speeches reflect our values. During her <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/09/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-a-gathering-of-community-violence-intervention-leaders/">February 9, 2024 speech</a> in Washington DC, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke to a group of community leaders about violence intervention. She sharply distinguished between leadership that <i>destroys </i>and leadership that <i>uplifts</i>. She asked us to refocus our values. <i>Her values, her vision, led her to speak for a broader, more positive approach to policy.</i> Harris said that reducing community violence meant not only “to reduce harm,” but also:<br /><blockquote> “…investing in the potential and the greatness.” </blockquote>Looking forward to the good instead of looking back to the evil! That was a powerful thesis, for, after all, we often do tend to dwell on evil and wickedness, neglecting to look at the path forward to controlling community violence.<br /><br />Directing her attention to one of the audience members, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Harris pointedly refuted the idea that a strong leader must be a harsh leader:<br /><blockquote>“And I’ll say that, you know, Governor, you and I have talked about this. I think there’s a certain perversion that has taken place over the last few years in our country that would suggest that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of what we know, which is that the true measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.”</blockquote>I suspect that she was referring obliquely to Donald Trump. She had a point. In times of stress and trouble, populations often turn to a leader who is powerful, strong, or even intimidating. They often look for leaders who will suppress their enemies, real or imaginary. History bodes poorly for that approach. After all, no rational person could think that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot made their nations secure or gave their citizens better lives. In the short run, the dictators crushed their opponents; in the long run, they protected no one. <br /><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJIo1d9A801c70bvYewckJCOGF0zQz5bSUxMRNvSGlZtj3u9tEBQf2ZQ6Q6Gqe6ipOTL_gqJ4JO2a_5DpPBHjoLNWZLG-xSdlDWJFHiRjDFnM98SOhjnLDSN-6OUr5yZg8OM7D8db81aq2tBteH-qn8uMrwCGja7StL2RoZUb4KUtj9joZ_btcYzfGcGI/s1185/Kamala%20Harris%20communit%20speech%202024.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="573" data-original-width="1185" height="155" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJIo1d9A801c70bvYewckJCOGF0zQz5bSUxMRNvSGlZtj3u9tEBQf2ZQ6Q6Gqe6ipOTL_gqJ4JO2a_5DpPBHjoLNWZLG-xSdlDWJFHiRjDFnM98SOhjnLDSN-6OUr5yZg8OM7D8db81aq2tBteH-qn8uMrwCGja7StL2RoZUb4KUtj9joZ_btcYzfGcGI/s320/Kamala%20Harris%20communit%20speech%202024.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kamala Harris delivers February 9, 2024 speech</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Harris said that, in contrast, a real leader seeks to learn about what people need. A real leader seeks to raise up everyone's life circumstances:<div><br /><blockquote>“That the characteristic of real leaders is the character that has some level of curiosity, concern, and care about the suffering of other people, and then takes it upon themselves, as part of their life’s work and mission, to uplift the condition of other people.”</blockquote>Let us suppose, for example, that the United States expels desperate refugees or takes the right to vote away from minority individuals. Will that make our country stronger? No. Will taking away other peoples’ rights make anyone better off? Of course not. There is another route, Harris said: real leadership means to “inspire so many people.”<br /><br />Continuing her speech, Harris endorsed the group's program to identify potential community violence. She suggested, instead, to find ways to prevent or deal with the problem, alleviate people's pain, and move forward to a safer society. Unlike many speakers, she rested her argument on values, not statistics, on vision, not anxiety. She advocated a new policy vision by shifting our values away from fear and threat, and toward hope.<br /><br />Can there be a better use for the gift of speech, than to help the audience become better versions of themselves? Can we not invest “<i>in the potential and the greatness?</i>”<div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div><br /></div><div><b style="font-family: arial;"><br />Earlier Posts</b></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/05/kamala-harris-speech-at-west-point.html">Kamala Harris' Speech at West Point: Tradition and Innovation</a><br /><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/10/kamala-harris-college-speech-voting-is.html">Kamala Harris' College Speech: Voting is the Way</a><br /><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2024/01/kamala-harris-simple-message-bears.html">Kamala Harris Gave a Simple Message about Keeping Children Safe from Guns. Is It Enough?</a></span><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: x-small;">Copyright © 2024, William D Harpine</i></div></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></i></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-82377132226565207142024-02-11T17:52:00.007-06:002024-02-11T21:27:15.936-06:00Conspiracy Theories and the Burden of Proof Recently, media personality and former licensed psychologist Dr. Phil (Phillip Calvin McGraw) <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13056189/Dr-Phil-Dr-Phil-migrants-Chinese-migrants-border-Chinese-migrants-southern-border.html">propounded a conspiracy theory</a> about Chinese immigrants:<br /><blockquote>“If they’re working in farming, if they’re working in industry, I promise you they are expected to do certain things. Are they spying? Are they sending seeds back from farming to China? Are they getting plans from industries they’re working on?”</blockquote>Dr. Phil was off track. <i>The person who wants to challenge existing policies or beliefs carries the burden of proof.</i> Critical thinking fails when public figures, or the public at large, ignores that long-tested standard of argumentation. When reason collapses, so does the republican system of government. In 2024, our leaders face a constant battle to disprove bizarre conspiracy theories—when there is no reason to believe the conspiracy theory to start with. And questions are not proof! <div><br /></div><div>Notice that Dr. Phil only asked questions. He proved nothing. That is how conspiracy theories hatch from their rotten eggs. Questions and conjectures never prove anything. Never have, never will. They’re just questions. If you make a point, prove it! Burden of proof is the most basic principle of dialectic, without which critical thinking falls to pieces.</div><div> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Presumption </span></b><br /><br />The burden of proof must overcome presumption. When we presume that existing policies and beliefs are correct, that doesn’t mean that they are. It only means that to expect the present system to defend itself against every wild accusation leads to chaos. Society would collapse in confusion. Analagously, in a United States law court, the court presumes that the defendant is innocent. That doesn’t mean that there is any evidence that the defendant is innocent! It just means that to draw random people into court and require them to prove that they never committed this or that crime would surely cause injustice. Can you, dear reader, prove with evidence that you were not the masked bandit who robbed a liquor store on January 8, 2013, at 7:50 PM? Probably not. However, fortunately for all of us, the court presumes that you are innocent.<br /><br />Likewise, we presume that only living people cast ballots. We presume that the people who count election ballots under supervision, following the provisions of law, will count them accurately. Does that mean that the ballots are absolutely accurate? Of course not. Instead, it means that people who challenge the ballots have the burden of proof. Let’s turn to that key idea.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Burden of Proof </span></b><br /><br />In <i>Elements of Rhetoric, </i>Bishop Richard Whately showed us how to adapt the idea of burden of proof from common law courts.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ2MJSPeLbPaamIxTkK55h3kKAlJBgXhYUAmj3QxyVxiRMfRjKYRLFdvSCyKHa_z8DVD5FTEu-Qf8K-DAAeOsRW7HZaT_BC7ZH-59HaGPcBrye1cWBkdiQV7DVxw8wnulVmPFb_aw57TqfQI4bUAED5wUW6ubu2YwupthiCqEl6S3YF4V-Zy-D9ZEPl_Y/s486/Whately%20rhetoric.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="486" data-original-width="395" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ2MJSPeLbPaamIxTkK55h3kKAlJBgXhYUAmj3QxyVxiRMfRjKYRLFdvSCyKHa_z8DVD5FTEu-Qf8K-DAAeOsRW7HZaT_BC7ZH-59HaGPcBrye1cWBkdiQV7DVxw8wnulVmPFb_aw57TqfQI4bUAED5wUW6ubu2YwupthiCqEl6S3YF4V-Zy-D9ZEPl_Y/s320/Whately%20rhetoric.jpg" width="260" /></a></div><div><br /></div>In public policy, burden of proof has two contexts. First, anyone who challenges existing policies and beliefs has the burden to prove that those policies and beliefs are wrong. When, and only when, appropriate and solid evidence has been produced, yes, someone needs to defend the present policies and beliefs. The second is that a person who makes a factual claim has the burden to prove it. You can’t just say, “I think that the Mafia killed John Kennedy, and you need to prove that I am wrong.” That unwisely shifts the burden of proof. Likewise, you can’t just ask, “are the migrants actually Chinese spies?” Questions prove nothing.<br /><br />So, did dead people vote in 2020? Good question, what is the proof? Former <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/thin-allegations-of-dead-people-voting/">New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani</a> commented, after Donald Trump lost in Michigan in 2020: “we’re going to be looking at dead persons’ ballots, which may actually be very, very substantial.”<br /><br />Does that prove anything? No, of course not. It’s random speculation, akin to a question. Giuliani did not say that he could prove that dead people voted. He said that he was going to look at it. He also said that it “may” be substantial. In other words, he tried to reverse the burden of proof, when he, in fact, had no proof to offer. Questions and conjectures prove nothing. Not ever.<br /><br />In any case, when <a href="http://FactCheck.org">FactCheck.org</a> asked the Trump campaign to prove that dead people voted, they revealed only one case of a single dead person who voted (for Trump!)<br /><br />Indeed, FactCheck.org was generous. After all, Giuliani had never accepted his burden of proof, and there was, under the rules of dialectic, no need whatsoever even to respond to his question. A sufficient response would be to say, “prove it!” If someone says that mail-in ballots were forged and that the proof is coming soon,” the first response is to say, “you have not fulfilled your burden of proof. I’ll wait until you show evidence, and then I’ll respond.”<br /><br />Fact-checking organizations like <a href="http://PolitiFact.org">PolitiFact.org</a> and <a href="http://FactCheck.org">FactCheck.org</a> perform a noble, thankless service and I wish people would pay more attention to them. Unfortunately, however, fact-checkers by their very nature accept the conspiracy theorists’ reversal of presumption. It is <i>not the fact checkers job</i> to prove that conspiracy theories are wrong. It is the <i>conspiracy theorists’ job</i> to prove their claims. If we fact-check an unproven claim, sometimes all we accomplish is to reset the debate on the ground that liars and scoundrels have chosen for themselves. Actually, all a fact checker should need to say is, “Dr. Phil asked whether Chinese spies are crossing the border, but he provided no evidence that they are.” Or, “Donald Trump claims that there was a ballot dump in Pennsylvania, but he never proved it.” Wait for the burden of proof; if the proof never comes, then, well, case closed. And <i>insist </i>that the case is closed. Poof.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Conspiracy Theories </span></b><br /><br />People do ask many questions these days. Are there questions about the 2020 election? Were mail-in ballots cast fraudulently? Did dead people vote? Are immigrants crossing the southern border to spy for China? Or, going back, can Barack Obama prove that he was born in the United States?<br /><br />As <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lincoln_Douglas_and_Slavery/SlCU9PS9VGcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=david+zarefsky&printsec=frontcover">Professor David Zarefsky</a> pointed out in 1993, conspiracy theories are as old as American politics itself. Conspiracy theorists (like Rudy Giuliani or Dr. Phil) often claim that their opponents have secret agendas. Can conspiracy theorists prove their conspiracies? Usually not! Conspiracies are secret! Still, without evidence, a conspiracy theory is just wild speculation.<div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/10/speeches-about-conspiracies-how-can-we.html">Earlier Post: Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Indeed, Zarefsky points out that conspiracy theorists throughout history routinely try to shift the burden of proof. They want us to believe things that they cannot prove. That road leads to madness.</div><div><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Conclusion </span></b><br /><br />Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true; most do not. The difference is evidence. Sadly, conspiracy theorists succeed when the public, failing to recognize the obligation to prove a point, accepts dubious, unproven claims. Critical thinking is absent. That is why, to have a healthy republic, listeners must grasp how to evaluate the different disputes that people contend. <br /><br />Burden of proof and presumption are not factual claims. They are part of the procedure of dialogue and debate that help us think critically. If we ignore the rules of debate, we mire ourselves in a swamp of confusion and disorder. So, a person who debates public policy must offer evidence.<br /><br />Or, follow this ancient idea: an argument has only two parts—state your case and prove it. Everything else is decoration.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/03/critical-thinking-on-cheap.html" style="font-family: arial;">Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap</a></div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div>___________________<br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6MwJbNPQPXOnFoLo6N9ZA1gRFvi-4HtZhrBk7L9QguP-bC8fbHVC0nLKi0ZXQERdkbgokjShKClwRFcjqLcC1jDAB3Mdjc0TxfKM1wLbLnTLlImqlJUARvZ8f9xHvcOZMjXeyBDo0YnQLfbekrykcabsqW6ahELR6vrU4dCLrCf5zNg7n2AuDqVC5IoU/s301/Richard_Whately.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="301" data-original-width="200" height="301" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6MwJbNPQPXOnFoLo6N9ZA1gRFvi-4HtZhrBk7L9QguP-bC8fbHVC0nLKi0ZXQERdkbgokjShKClwRFcjqLcC1jDAB3Mdjc0TxfKM1wLbLnTLlImqlJUARvZ8f9xHvcOZMjXeyBDo0YnQLfbekrykcabsqW6ahELR6vrU4dCLrCf5zNg7n2AuDqVC5IoU/s1600/Richard_Whately.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: x-small;">Richard Whately</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Research Note: </span></b><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Whately explains burden of proof in his wonderful 1828 book, <i><a href="https://archive.org/details/elementsofrheto00what/page/n9/mode/2up">Elements of Rhetoric</a></i>. Any present-day argumentation and debate textbook will give a brief, easy to understand explanation. For example, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Argumentation-Debate-Austin-J-Freeley/dp/1133311601/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2NKGHPA6Z29BQ&keywords=argumentation+and+debate&qid=1707683762&sprefix=argumentation+a%2Caps%2C995&sr=8-1">Austin Freeley’s superb book</a> is widely assigned in college debate courses. <br /><br /><br /><b>Personal Note:</b><br /><br />There is nothing wrong with saying that you do not know something. Are Chinese spies crossing the border? I do not know. I will await evidence.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">By the way, do schools do an adequate job of teaching critical thinking? I'm just asking a question, not making a claim--what do you think? </span></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Copyright <span style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© 2024, William D Harpine</span></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Image of Richard Whately, public domain in the United States, published before 1928, via <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Whately.jpg">Wikimedia</a></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><br /> </div></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-75211814229528546482024-01-31T15:08:00.006-06:002024-01-31T20:38:26.875-06:00Stokely Carmichael in 1966: Civil Rights Laws Enforce Rights that Already Exist<blockquote>“It is ironic to talk about civilization in this country. This country is uncivilized. It needs to be civilized. It needs to be civilized.”</blockquote>So said the always-shocking civil rights leader Stokely Carmichael (later Kwame Ture), <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stokelycarmichaelblackpower.html">speaking at the University of California Berkeley</a> on October 29, 1966. That was about two years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was at that time only sporadically enforced. Carmichael, a former Freedom Rider and the leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, wanted his audience to look in a mirror and see the opposite side of their well-meaning but self-centered viewpoint.<br /><br />Carmichael reidentified the civil rights problem. That is, he refocused his audience’s attention. The larger question that Carmichael implied (but never fully answered) was, can the United States reform racist practices? Those practices might have included Jim Crow, Voting rights? Lynching? Housing discrimination. He left the answer to history. Indeed, he left the question to history.<br /><br />One of the civil rights movement’s more polarizing figures, Carmichael was, like Martin Luther King, Jr., <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/26/fbi-black-activism-protests-history">shadowed by the FBI</a> as a potential subversive. Although he shared King’s nonviolent approach, his speeches carried a bit of sting. <div>_______________</div><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-law-cant-change-heart-but-it-can.html">"The Law Can't Change the Heart, but It Can Restrain the Heartless:" Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Churches and the Struggle for Justice</a></span><div>_______________</div><div><br />How did Carmichael argue for his point? All arguments start with premises. Here are two possible premises about the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. <i>At the most, only one can be true.</i><br /><blockquote><b>Premise #1:</b> The regular idea, right out of the history books, says that civil rights laws gave rights to minority people. <br /><br /><b>Premise #2: </b>Carmichael instead insisted that everyone already has rights, while civil rights laws merely help white racists control their behavior.</blockquote>If, like many of us today in 2024, we think the problem is Premise #1, we still put white people in charge. Only if we see Premise #2 do we understand universal civil rights. Do we believe in #1? Or #2? Not an easy question! If it is #1, the majority generously (or grudgingly) shares its rights. Suppose, however, that we agree with the United States of America’s Founders that rights are universal, given by God: “endowed by their Creator,” as the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript">Declaration of Independence</a> says, “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That would be Premise #2. Right? <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></b><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Conventional Analysis: <br /></span></b><br />In other words, Carmichael reversed our conventional vision. The conventional view says that civil rights laws opened doors that had blocked minority individuals from making economic, political, and social progress. As the <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act">History Channel</a> explains:<br /><blockquote>“The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement.”</blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha6e7vpw7Bd1m0igreiJxaZQ6XN7LtlhKtZ36Pb_OnhpilhwlkjfBZvURJXb5Q58qyuBDH0j_X1_kJ0oQHi-YvmHtm8cF0pjG-Ki-Vrdg6eMHqsxsEpizJMv7ywYzDyCs_Q6OEaw4Fknd5s67zJT9iVZrKDzzJxJB0fBBUkhrZ6-We4SVvMAonKTZW5bg/s1600/Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1071" data-original-width="1600" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha6e7vpw7Bd1m0igreiJxaZQ6XN7LtlhKtZ36Pb_OnhpilhwlkjfBZvURJXb5Q58qyuBDH0j_X1_kJ0oQHi-YvmHtm8cF0pjG-Ki-Vrdg6eMHqsxsEpizJMv7ywYzDyCs_Q6OEaw4Fknd5s67zJT9iVZrKDzzJxJB0fBBUkhrZ6-We4SVvMAonKTZW5bg/s320/Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lyndon Johnson Signs Civil Rights Act of 1964</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />See the point? In this dramatic photo, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with an almost entirely white entourage. Now, by the conventional analysis, civil rights laws expanded human rights, protecting minority groups from oppression. “<i>Ended </i>segregation,” it says, and “<i>banned </i>employment discrimination.” We often think of civil rights legislation as a case of the majority voters, who were, in the mid-1960’s, mostly white, generously turning loose of their control and <i>granting </i>voting rights and other rights to African Americans and other minority groups. </div><div><br />Carmichael, however, utterly denied that analysis. He said that those rights already existed.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Carmichael’s Analysis </span></b><br /><br />Looking at the mirror image of civil rights, Carmichael’s point was that Black people—all people, actually—already have rights. After reviewing a vast intellectual tradition, including the founders of the American Republic and existentialist philosophers, Carmichael insisted that we all have rights by virtue of being human. We don’t, Carmichael insisted, have rights just because someone passed a law granting us rights that otherwise would escape us. That, he said, was a contradiction:<br /><blockquote>“The philosophers Camus and Sartre raise the question whether or not a man can condemn himself.” </blockquote>Carmichael said no. Carmichael said that it makes no sense to think that a white racist society could pass laws condemning its own nature. Instead, he explained that society would never, could never, condemn itself.</div><div><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">A Horrifying Example </span></b><br /><br />To illustrate that point, Carmichael gave a stark example from 1964’s infamous “Mississippi burning” case. In that horror (two short years before Carmichael’s speech), vigilantes, with unofficial support from the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/freedomsummer-murder/">Neshoba County, Mississippi government</a>, had murdered three civil rights workers. Carmichael showed that the people who elected a racist sheriff would never condemn that same sheriff for doing the evil things that they elected him to do:<br /><blockquote>“On a more immediate scene, the officials and the population—the white population—in Neshoba County, Mississippi—that’s where Philadelphia is—could not—could not condemn [Sheriff] Rainey, his deputies, and the other fourteen men that killed three human beings. They could not because they elected Mr. Rainey to do precisely what he did; and that for them to condemn him will be for them to condemn themselves.”</blockquote>And Carmichael had a point! After the Mississippi trial, the judge <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/slain-civil-rights-workers-found">gave the killers light sentences</a>, commenting that “They killed one n*****, one Jew, and a white man. I gave them what I thought they deserved.” <br /><br />In that example, racism vanquished justice, and the judge made a ruling that fit his racist beliefs.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Carmichael Sided with Thomas Jefferson! </span></b><br /><br />That is why Carmichael said the nation was “uncivilized.” His harsh idea was not new. Thomas Jefferson, his words now <a href="https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/quotations-jefferson-memorial/">engraved on the Jefferson Memorial</a> in Washington, DC, stated:<br /><blockquote>“Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” </blockquote>Likewise, said Carmichael, it was white people who needed a civil rights law, precisely to restrain racist behavior: <br /><blockquote>“<i>You </i>need a civil rights bill, not me. I know I can live where I want to live.” [italics added]</blockquote>Sometimes, an exceptional speaker like Carmichael, like Jefferson, turns a controversial issue around, showing us a new light, giving us a new way to think.<br /><br />Black people, Carmichael insisted, already understood the issue:<br /><blockquote>“I knew that I could vote and that that wasn’t a privilege; it was my right. Every time I tried, I was shot, killed or jailed, beaten or economically deprived. So somebody had to write a bill for white people to tell them, ‘When a Black man comes to vote, don’t bother him.’ That bill, again, was for white people, not for Black people; so that when you talk about open occupancy, I know I can live anyplace I want to live. It is white people across this country who are incapable of allowing me to live where I want to live.”</blockquote>Yet, Carmichael pointed out the contradiction: civil rights laws, passed by a white majority, could never condemn the people who wrote and passed them. So, could civil rights laws, in any important sense, undo racism’s basic wickedness? Or is it Carmichael, who, wrapped up in his existentialist pessimism, could not see the nation make progress? As we work through the year 2024, those vital questions remain on the books. <br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Don’t Civil Rights Already Exist?</b></span><br /><br />So, didn’t that Mississippi burning judge miss the point? For, if Carmichael was right, if the Declaration of Independence is correct, if the 14th Amendment is still valid, Black people already had rights. This led Carmichael to call civil rights legislation incoherent to the core. For, he insisted, American society could never turn against itself:<br /><blockquote>“So that the failures to pass a civil rights bill isn’t because of Black Power, isn’t because of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; it’s not because of the rebellions that are occurring in the major cities. It is incapability of whites to deal with their own problems inside their own communities. That is the problem of the failure of the civil rights bill.”</blockquote>Was Carmichael’s attitude cynical to the extreme? Obviously yes. But the real question is, do we in 2024 have a better attitude? Is there a way to move forward toward the United States of America’s ideals of freedom without ripping down the entire system, as Carmichael threatened to do? I certainly hope so, but Carmichael’s challenge has not been answered, not conclusively, even today, has it?<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Do We Still Ask the Same Questions? </span></b><br /><br />Is Premise #1 true? Or is it Premise #2? For it cannot be both. Do we agree with Premise #1, smugly saying that freedom is a gift, generously bestowed by the laws that benevolent rulers adopt? Or do we side with Premise #2, that we all have rights? That is the challenge that Stokely Carmichael offered in this dramatic speech. <br /><br />And that, I suppose, is why Carmichael concluded his speech with two opposing prongs. He offered a prong of hope:<br /><blockquote>“We are tired of trying to explain to white people that we’re not going to hurt them.” </blockquote>Then, he ended with a prong of threat:<br /><blockquote>“Will white people overcome their racism and allow for that to happen in this country? If that does not happen, brothers and sisters, we have no choice but to say very clearly, ‘Move over, or we’re going to move on over you.’”</blockquote>So many speakers over the centuries offer simple, glib solutions to overwhelming problems. Can simple, glib solutions solve our civil rights problems? Given the Donald Trump revolution, I have my doubts. The Republican Party’s <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/19/gop-culture-war-college-dei-florida-texas-00087697">ongoing battle</a> against what they call “woke” policies and diversity initiatives suggests ongoing negative attitudes. The Trump-era brings back the question of whether nonwhite people have rights, too.<br /><br />The key problem is that, if we govern by Premise #1, the country can take away people’s rights as easily as it grants them. Is there a solution? Voters elected Donald Trump in 2016 and might elect him again in 2024. Will Trump’s voters condemn themselves for Trump’s actions? Carmichael would say that it would be impossible for Trump’s voters to condemn him, for they would have to condemn themselves.</div><div><br />Carmichael’s speech didn’t offer solutions. Instead, he stated stark problems in stark terms. He asked people to think. He challenged his audience. The answers to his challenge are the answers to the United States’ future.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">By William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div>________________ <br /><br /> </div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Earlier Civil Rights Posts:</span></b></div><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/02/malcolm-x-at-univesrity-of-california.html">Malcolm X at the University of California: Striking at America's Myths</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/02/james-baldwins-1963-speech-ripped-away.html" style="font-family: arial;">James Baldwin's 1963 Speech Ripped Away Two American Myths</a><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/03/fannie-lou-hamer-sick-and-tired-of.html">Fannie Lou Hamer, "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired," Gave a Voting Rights Speech in Narrative Style</a></span><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><div><br /></div></div></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright <i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">© 2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><br /></i></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><div style="text-align: right;"><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpg">Image: Cecil Stoughton, White House Press Office, public domain</a></i></div></span>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-26849479099824946302024-01-22T12:59:00.012-06:002024-01-31T15:29:41.561-06:00George Whitefield's Sermon about the “Flaming Preacher” <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI1krFpmXdnQXTrUMZoE-dcgfSrjx8cL9BweJ9PS1hDCn2GaCmnnTFhfj-RxboeOVDTVhtGMsFVx59EHbuOP3vsfHB9yE-lDIv5KDJ0F1Sk-qVCEnq_-07YAYo6e1AW2ASz3Ca8vjJiCBdhq06iLPIMLdKwNCfTYCrBOkPGfdxskNFhWedStMl4oJWXqs/s900/George%20Whitefield%20Q93862543-PG62023-frontis.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="810" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI1krFpmXdnQXTrUMZoE-dcgfSrjx8cL9BweJ9PS1hDCn2GaCmnnTFhfj-RxboeOVDTVhtGMsFVx59EHbuOP3vsfHB9yE-lDIv5KDJ0F1Sk-qVCEnq_-07YAYo6e1AW2ASz3Ca8vjJiCBdhq06iLPIMLdKwNCfTYCrBOkPGfdxskNFhWedStMl4oJWXqs/s320/George%20Whitefield%20Q93862543-PG62023-frontis.jpg" width="288" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">George Whitefield</span></td></tr></tbody></table>“Enoch,” <a href="https://ccel.org/ccel/whitefield/sermons.iv.html">preached Anglican priest George Whitefield</a> in the mid-1700’s, “in all probability was a public person, and a flaming preacher.” <div><br /></div><div>Often credited as one of the Methodist movement’s founders as well as among the first American evangelicals, Whitefield mixed historical information with fiction to persuade his audience to “walk with God.” However, if we mix fact with fiction, what lesson have we learned? What does it mean to walk with God? For the idea of a “flaming preacher” is for raw, flaming, emotion to leave logic and tradition equally in its wake. Doing so, Whitefield set the stage for the 21st Century’s emotion-driven evangelical speaking. The reader might ask, is that good, or bad? Or some of both? As Whitefield’s emotional outburst, which evoked strong feelings while he stretched biblical devotion past any reasonable limit, offers the reader little functional guidance.<br /><br />In his sermon “Walking with God,” Whitefield highlighted the obscure biblical character Enoch, a “flaming preacher.” Maybe, however, it was Whitefield himself who was the flaming preacher! Whitefield spun a moral narrative around a stunningly imaginative depiction of Enoch. Forsaking a scholarly exposition, Whitefield’s sermon resembled a modern infotainment program, in which he randomly intermixed documentable points with wild speculation, while making little effort to distinguish one from the other. Just as modern media often intermix fact with fiction, so Whitefield created a make-believe version of Enoch to make a point. Accordingly, the listener learns to “walk with God,” but never learns just what that means in their own lives.<br /><br />Whitefield, a major figure of the <a href="https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1701-1800/the-great-awakening-11630212.html">Great Awakening</a> in England and North America, preached heartfelt, energetic sermons to enormous, often outdoor crowds. <br /><br />In “Walking with God,” Whitefield's theme was, ‘And Enoch walked with God’ (Genesis 5:24 KJV). By creating a metaphorical image that believers should “walk with God,” Whitefield personalized what could otherwise have become a dry, well, shall we say, “preachy” kind of sermon. Since the Bible says little about Enoch, Whitefield felt free to expand poetically to show how a fictionalized Enoch could symbolize the believer’s righteous path.<br /><div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_26.html">Tyler Perry at the 2019 BET Awards: "Helping Someone Cross" as a Metaphor for Reaching Out to Help</a></span><br style="font-family: arial;" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Enoch’s Imaginative Path </b><br /></span><br />Right from the outset, Whitefield expounded on Enoch’s obscurity, while simultaneously creating a biography for him:<br /><blockquote>“Who this Enoch was, does not appear so plainly. To me, he seems to have been a person of public character; I suppose, like Noah, a preacher of righteousness. And, if we may credit the apostle Jude, he was a flaming preacher.” [italics added]</blockquote>“I suppose?” “<i>I suppose?</i>” So, Enoch became, in Whitefield’s powerful imagination, a symbol of how believers can “walk with God.” Lacking evidence, Whitefield created Enoch as a dramatic character. Nothing prevented Whitefield from admitting the obvious, which is that almost nothing is known about Enoch. That, however, would be stunningly unimaginative. Whitefield chose a different, far more creative rhetorical path! For, instead of analyzing what the Bible says, Whitefield preached on what he supposed. Oddly, that tactic seemed to work.<br /><br />Indeed, to make his point clear, to assuage those listeners who were anxious to live a Christian life, Whitefield showed how Enoch demonstrated, in his own life (about which the Bible says almost nothing), how piously walking with God is the way to heaven:<br /><blockquote>“… there is a heaven at the end of this walk. For, to use the words of pious bishop Beveridge, ‘Though the way be narrow, yet it is not long: and though the gate be strait, yet it opens into everlasting life’. Enoch found it so. He walked with God on earth, and God took him to sit down with him for ever in the kingdom of heaven.”</blockquote>On the one hand, yes, Whitefield is expounding on Enoch’s obscure story to the extent of near-fabrication. That is, from the brief statement that Enoch “walked with God,” a brief mention in the biblical Letter of Jude, and the account in Hebrews that Enoch ended up in heaven (Hebrews 11:5), Whitefield derived an important moral principle for his listeners. That principle is that we should walk with God. On the other hand, although the argument is strained, Whitefield’s premise does imply a certain amount of internal logic: 1) The Bible teaches a Christian life, and, 2) Enoch got to heaven. Whitefield reached a speculative conclusion from those two clues. Whitefield’s conclusion seemed so reasonable, at least to believers, that a listener could easily overlook his failure to offer meaningful textual evidence. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Personalizing the Doctrines </span></b><br /><br />As his exposition reached its end, Whitefield continued to personalize Enoch, developing from Enoch’s character a lesson of Christian devotion:<br /><blockquote>“I observed at the beginning of this discourse, that Enoch in all probability was a public person, and a flaming preacher. Though he be dead, does he not yet speak to us, to quicken our zeal, and make us more active in the service of our glorious and ever-blessed Master? How did Enoch preach! How did Enoch walk with God, though he lived in a wicked and adulterous generation! Let us then follow him, as he followed Jesus Christ….”</blockquote>The imaginative speculations with which Whitefield started have now, astonishingly, become moral principles. Was Enoch a preacher at all? Much more, was he “a flaming preacher?” The Bible seems to be strangely silent on those questions. Instead, Enoch’s personality was, in large part, a speculative creation of Whitefield’s creative impulses.<br /><br />Yet, Whitefield was not preaching as a scholar. His method was to preach to, and from, the heart. He wanted his listeners to “walk with God.” From two simple biblical points, that Enoch walked with God and then went to heaven, Whitefield created a narrative frame, a character study, if you will, to inspire his listeners. Whitefield’s fictionalized Enoch seemingly helped listeners grasp his moral, religious perspective, with accuracy being, at best, a minor inconvenience.<br /><br />In particular, it is astonishing for Whitefield to say, that Enoch “followed Jesus Christ,” when there is no scriptural support whatsoever for that claim. Indeed, I suspect that many rabbis would rightly find that connection to be obscure, if not offensive. In his conclusion, however, Whitefield was more concerned to inspire his audience, and less committed to informing them.</div><div>_____________</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Here are two present-day evangelical preachers. Does the reader see similarities to Whitefield, in their enthusiasm, or their tendency to speculate? Or not? </i></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/06/paula-white-prays-against-trumps.html">Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate</a></span><br style="font-family: arial;" /><br style="font-family: arial;" /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/06/franklin-graham-prays-for-divine-right.html" style="font-family: arial;">Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents: Religion Becomes a Political Tool</a></div><div><div>_____________</div><div><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Conclusion </span></b><br /><br />So, Whitefield personalized his theological narrative by spinning out a semi-fictionalized version of an obscure person from the Hebrew scriptures. In Whitefield’s sermon, Enoch became a character in a moral drama. Interesting. Controversial. Emotional. Probably quite convincing. Strongly suggestive of preaching techniques that sometimes crop up in the present day. As we listen, today, to the preaching of Franklin Graham or Paula White, or the prosperity preachers, we still experience the Great Awakening’s rhetorical techniques.</div><div>_____________</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Two other preachers from the Great Awakening</i></span></div><div><br style="font-family: arial;" /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/10/john-wesleys-sermon-against-bigotry.html">John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry</a></span><br style="font-family: arial;" /><br style="font-family: arial;" /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/08/jonathan-edwards-sinners-in-hands-of.html">Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:" Proof-Texting as a Rhetorical Tactic</a></span></div><div>_____________</div><div><br /></div><div><i><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">By William D. Harpine</span></i></div></i></div><div><br /></div><div><b style="font-family: arial;"><br />Historical Note:</b><span style="font-family: arial;"> Although Whitefield never left the Church of England, he often counts as one of the founders of the modern-day Methodist Church, and, later in his career, the American divisions of the </span><a href="https://www.logcollegepress.com/blog/2022/12/29/the-presbyterian-church-that-george-whitefield-built" style="font-family: arial;">Presbyterian Church</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. It might be more accurate to suggest that Whitefield rarely tied himself to any one religious authority. Indeed, “Walking with God” also presages the Dispensationalist perspective that would come to influence evangelical theology in the next century. In colonial America, Whitefield was known for operating an orphanage. Good for him. Although he insisted that slaves should not be treated harshly, Whitefield </span><a href="https://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2015-01/george-whitefield-s-troubled-relationship-race-and-slavery" style="font-family: arial;">enslaved Africans</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> on his American properties. How cruel. Moral complexities are nothing new, are they?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /><br /><b>Biblical Note:</b> Jude 1:14-16 KJV in the Bible says only this about Enoch, never mentioning a “flaming preacher:”<br /><blockquote>“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.” </blockquote>However, an ancient writing called the<i> <a href="https://ia801001.us.archive.org/19/items/TheCompleteBookOfEnochStandardEnglishVersionJayWinter/The%20Complete%20Book%20of%20Enoch%2C%20Standard%20English%20Version%20-%20Jay%20Winter.pdf">First Book of Enoch</a></i>, which is not in the Bible, talks repeatedly about “flaming” (“Its ceiling also was flaming fire;” “The flaming fire was round about Him;” “And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire,” etc.). That may account for Whitefield’s claim that Enoch was a “flaming preacher.” Who knows?<br /></span></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Copyright <i>© 2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/62023/pg62023-images.html">Image, public domain, from Project Gutenberg</a></i></span></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-14189495765515408882024-01-16T10:55:00.010-06:002024-01-16T12:07:35.136-06:00Kamala Harris Gave a Simple Message about Keeping Children Safe from Guns. Is It Enough? <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpZQ5afNt6eiwWY7kt0WQg2Zo9BvnxbXfl5b_a7weMzi-RVJttag611E52eYwFFQkTU4viBqA7RCD52eTB5Qc7uOjTH4SHBI7KV9anVeVxLuK4yP73uGoncJWdrY2bZ0q-a9k5kock2hihtTPgsh5vyD4epqpuwCrEGVG37ynxcwo6sORxtH8SOfGUprA/s306/kamala%20harris%20official%20photo.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="306" data-original-width="220" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpZQ5afNt6eiwWY7kt0WQg2Zo9BvnxbXfl5b_a7weMzi-RVJttag611E52eYwFFQkTU4viBqA7RCD52eTB5Qc7uOjTH4SHBI7KV9anVeVxLuK4yP73uGoncJWdrY2bZ0q-a9k5kock2hihtTPgsh5vyD4epqpuwCrEGVG37ynxcwo6sORxtH8SOfGUprA/s1600/kamala%20harris%20official%20photo.jpg" width="220" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kamala Harris</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Warning of the horrors of gun violence that America's children face daily, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “<span face="MercurySSm-Book-Pro_Web, serif" style="background-color: white; color: #0a2458; font-size: 16px;">let’s understand how many people in our country, including the children, are experiencing profound trauma.</span>”<br /><div><br /></div><div>A simple message bears repeating. <i>Needs </i>repeating. <br /><br />Harris visited Eastway Middle School in Charlotte, North Carolina on January 11th, 2024, to host a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/01/11/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-before-a-roundtable-discussion-on-gun-violence-prevention-charlotte-nc/">Roundtable Discussion</a> on Gun Violence Prevention in Charlotte, North Carolina. <br /><br />After meeting privately with a group of students, Harris delivered a brief, thoughtful speech in which she thanked community leaders for trying to protect our children from being shot. She gave the kind of straightforward message that jaded audiences tend to ignore. Can Harris give her simple message more force? Yes, of course she can, but there is a “but.” The “but” is that they need to repeat their messages, over and over, because, as the saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own. Harris’ speech, by itself, gained little attention, but a speaking tour might. So, after discussing Harris’ comments, I’ll go back in history to show how <i>a politician can gain attention by calmly repeating a message.<br /></i><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">A Simple, Profound Message </span></b><br /><br />Now, during her brief speech, Harris gave her key point in one simple, stark, quotable statement:<br /><blockquote>“…in the United States of America today the number one killer of our children in America is gun violence — not car accidents, not some form of cancer. Gun violence is the number one killer of the children of America.”</blockquote>That simple fact should, in principle, fill parents with fear. Yes, parents might worry instead about what books their children read, what clothes they wear in school, and who they make friends with. Some parents are terrified that children might see a drag show or learn about Jim Crow laws. We have become so numb to school shootings and random drive-bys that we easily forget that the main danger that children face in the United States is that someone will shoot them. Harris focused squarely on that simple fact.<br /><br />Harris used the power of her office to remind all of us of one basic, fundamental danger. She calmly made a positive point about community involvement and children’s safety. She stated the simple fact that gun violence is the greatest threat to children. Will that be enough?<br /><br />Harris’ speech received <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/vp-harris-announces-285-million-202135538.html">some attention in the press</a>, although not as much as the issue deserves. While the nation grows breathless over migrant crossings at Eagle Pass, drag shows, or Donald Trump’s latest rant, why do we pay so little attention to the gun violence that poses, by far, the greatest threat to our nation’s youth? “Ho, hum,” Americans say, “a dozen children were shot dead yesterday. Ho, hum.” For, although the issue remains important, Harris does not try to draw all of the air out of the room by spreading hysterical conspiracy theories. Will her message have a long-term effect? If she and other advocates pound away on this issue often enough, will the public begin to take it more seriously? <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />How McKinley Did It </span></b><br /><br />Yet, simple messages can succeed if the speaker is persistent. History teaches this lesson. In 1899, with the Spanish-American War safely in the history books, President William McKinley faced the daunting task of convincing the United States to become a world imperial power by annexing the Philippine islands. Many Americans, especially in the conservative South favored letting the Filipinos have their own government. McKinley went on a series of speaking tours through the nation, particularly in the hostile South (McKinley was a Union Civil War hero!), to sell his ideas. He avoided startling language. His policy discussions were vague and safe. His speeches were calm and dignified. He gave his respects to dead Confederate soldiers. He often traveled with General Joseph Wheeler, a southerner who was a hero of both the Civil War and the Spanish American War. Even Southerners who didn't like McKinley cheered for Wheeler. McKinley's tours gained public support and the Senate ratified the treaty. <br /><br />I'll write some more about McKinley in the future. In the meantime, here are the lessons: <br /><br />1. A speaker can gain attention without screaming like a lunatic. <br /><br />2. A speaker who wants to sell a contentious idea can't just talk to supporters. A speaker also needs to reach out to unfriendly audiences. That takes determination. <br /><br />3. Traveling not only gives the speaker new audiences, but also access to the local press. More local papers (today, more local TV coverage)—more attention! <br /><br />4. It is rare for one speech, no matter how good, to do the job. Persistence means success. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Back to Harris </span></b><br /><br />So, it is fine for Harris to give calm, safe, speeches. Democrats don’t need to act like Republicans. Harris just needs to give more calm, reasoned speeches, and to give them in more places to more audiences. Sadly, few Americans even know that she went there. However, people would eventually notice if she toured many middle schools to talk about gun violence. <br /><br />Overall, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are giving good speeches to good audiences, and they are making good points. <i>They just aren't doing it enough</i>. Speakers do not need to draw all the oxygen out of the room. They don't need to scream conspiracy theories. They just need to make sense, over, and over, and over again. As much as anything, speakers need to be persistent. <br /><br />After all, when Harris said that, “the number one killer of our children in America is gun violence,” that powerful statement should terrify any parent. But to say it only once, or only a few times? Never enough. Why isn’t she giving three or four speeches a week about gun violence, across the country, including at least some speeches at events and schools in the gun culture regions? A speaker needs to be heard. <br />______________<br /><h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 22px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;"><br /></h3><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/05/kamala-harris-speech-at-west-point.html">Earlier Post: Kamala Harris' Speech at West Point: Tradition and Innovation</a></span><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></b><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/10/kamala-harris-college-speech-voting-is.html">Earlier Post: Kamala Harris' College Speech: Voting is the Way</a></span><div>______________</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Conclusion </span></b><br /><br />Still, Harris focused—and focused precisely—on the danger that firearms pose to children. That represents a step toward raising public interest in the threat. Will the nation listen? Or not?<br /><br /><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">By William D. Harpine</span></i></div><br />______________<br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Research note:</b> I discussed McKinley’s speaking tours in a chapter of <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rhetorical-Presidency-Presidential-Political-Communication/dp/1603440712/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1705418489&sr=8-1">Before the Rhetorical Presidency</a></i>, edited by the late Martin J. Medhurst. Available new or used from Amazon, and can be read in large research libraries. (Disclosure: I do not get royalties from this one, but I was proud to write the chapter.) <br /><br />Also, here is a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/u/0/d/12fqo6IVaI6hdVWInpU4jgoPRnie5LTuk/view?usp=sharing&pli=1">full text of a convention paper</a> that I presented about McKinley’s speaking tours. <br /><br />Click “<a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/p/william-d-harpines-publications.html">William D. Harpine’s Publications</a>” at the link above for more of my writing about McKinley. </span><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Copyright <i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© 2024, William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">Image: Official White House photo</i></span></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-21359460197136900692024-01-15T20:05:00.003-06:002024-01-16T10:20:00.660-06:00Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about MountainsMetaphors push people to see hidden insights, to uncover difficult truths, to investigate our own minds. As people, we can move away from old mountains and build mountains. People face challenges and sometimes abandon traditional evils. Speaking at Temple Israel Hollywood, a Reform Jewish synagogue, on February 26, 1965, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about the mountains we all face. In this sermon, King’s metaphor of mountains told us about challenges that the world faces, obstacles that humanity needs to overcome, magnificent goals to seek, and triumphs to achieve, as, King explained, people work toward a biblical Promised Land of love and justice. This magnificent speech presaged 1968’s triumphant culmination, “I Have Been to the Mountain Top.” <div>____________</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2020/01/martin-luther-king-jr-at-mountaintop-in.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Mountaintop in Memphis, Tennessee: A Speech for the Ages</span></a></div><div>____________</div><div><div><br /></div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaNWUEzG9f4TsMkhKXrQwdYKDJn0cRWqgGyuhYZEE4Rs1FtGv4vcyoNbhdlW_T2jeLDucDgldmaACxDps57IPl01JekgPbtDPIdrrm2yo69_QSprj1GeO1LVQgEfl8Ufh8F3Ff2NeraXth3vcIT8Gg9UXjOmmGqnTngsF2r65OySlWedXOh1Tx-NP51xQ/s3872/Mount_Moses%20sinai.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2592" data-original-width="3872" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaNWUEzG9f4TsMkhKXrQwdYKDJn0cRWqgGyuhYZEE4Rs1FtGv4vcyoNbhdlW_T2jeLDucDgldmaACxDps57IPl01JekgPbtDPIdrrm2yo69_QSprj1GeO1LVQgEfl8Ufh8F3Ff2NeraXth3vcIT8Gg9UXjOmmGqnTngsF2r65OySlWedXOh1Tx-NP51xQ/s320/Mount_Moses%20sinai.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Mount Sinai</span></td></tr></tbody></table>A skilled rhetorician, King used the mountain metaphor to make one point after another. He posed moral challenges that still confront us, as too many Americans seek to turn back to the old mountains of oppression and indignity.<br /><br />King’s thesis connected his powerful metaphor to the scriptural story of Israel escaping from Egypt, a story that reminded the congregation of their shared history of human bondage:<br /><blockquote>“Tonight I would like to have you think with me from the subject, Keep Moving from this Mountain. I would like to take your minds back many, many centuries into a familiar experience so significantly recorded in the sacred Scriptures. The Children of Israel had been reduced into the bondage of physical slavery.”</blockquote>Let us look at all the twists King gave to the mountain metaphor.<br /><br />First, mountains pose terrible obstacles, which must be faced and overcome. As they fled slavery in Egypt, the people of Israel, King said they:<br /><blockquote>“… had to realize that before they could get to the Promised Land, they had to face gigantic mountains and prodigious hilltops.”</blockquote></div><div>This challenge divided the people into three camps. The first two groups feared the challenges:<br /><blockquote>“One group said in substance that ‘We would rather go back to Egypt.’ They preferred the flesh pots of Egypt to the challenges of the Promised Land. A second group that abhorred the idea of going back to Egypt, and yet they abhorred the idea of facing the difficulties of moving ahead to the Promised Land and they somehow wanted to remain stationary and choose the line of least resistance.”</blockquote>The third group, however, after the Promised Land was spied out, decided, according to King, that the land would be a difficult goal to reach, but they could achieve it all the same:<br /><blockquote>“There was a third group…who admitted that there were giants in the land but who said, ‘We can possess the land.’”</blockquote>That last group saw the challenges, but determined to overcome them:<br /><blockquote>“This group said in substance that ‘We will go on in spite of...,’ that ‘We will not allow anything to stop us,’ that ‘We will move on amid the difficulties, amid the trials, amid the tribulations.’”</blockquote>By now, King was not just talking about physical mountains, but about dangers and conflicts that awaited the people. The metaphor had grown.<br /><br />Second, King explained that people sometimes must stop climbing one mountain and turn to another:<br /><blockquote>“The first chapter of the book of Deuteronomy said, ‘Ye have been in this mountain long enough. Turn you and take your journey and go to the mount of the Amorites.’”</blockquote>In King’s interpretation, God always wants us to look ahead, not behind. This means to face new and different mountains:<br /><blockquote>“Whenever God speaks, he says, ‘Move on from mountains of stagnant complacency and deadening pacifity.’ So this is the great challenge that always stands before men.”</blockquote>Third, advancing on the Hebrew scriptures, King talked about mountains that America faced in his own time:<br /><blockquote>“Tonight, I would like to suggest some of the symbolic mountains that we have occupied long enough and that we must leave if we are to move on to the promised land of justice, peace, and brotherhood.”</blockquote>Toward that end, King said that, instead of pursuing crass materialism and greed, we must aim at spiritual goals:<br /><blockquote>“We must move on to that mountain which says in substance, ‘What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world of means -- airplanes, televisions, electric lights -- and lose the end: the soul?’”</blockquote>Moving toward the mountain that leads us to our souls? That might be the steepest of all climbs. We must, he said, move away from the “mountain of racial injustice:”<br /><blockquote>“Now the other mountain that we’ve occupied long enough, and certainly it is quite relevant to discuss this at this time when we think of brotherhood -- we’ve been in the mountain of racial injustice long enough. And now it is time for us to move on to that great and noble realm of justice and brotherhood.”</blockquote>King then spun the globe to discuss world-wide injustice. He found yet another mountain that faced the world: “the mountain of indifference:<br /><blockquote>“And we’ve been in the mountain of indifference too long and ultimately we must be concerned about the least of these; we must be concerned about the poverty-stricken because our destinies are tied together.”</blockquote>Nearing his sermon’s end, King said that we must leave “the mountain of violence and hatred.” He said that “violence is both impractical and immoral.” Indeed, he warned, “We’ve been in the mountain of violence and hatred too long.”<br /><br />Returning to scriptural themes, King concluded by quoting the prophet Isaiah. The prophet said that every mountain must be leveled, and every plain must be raised. Metaphorically, everything evil that society praises must be laid down, and justice must rise, and only then will be see God’s glory:<br /><blockquote>“Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill shall be made low. The rough places will be made plain and the crooked places straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”</blockquote>King’s metaphors pushed his audience to face deep, even frightening, moral challenges. He spoke of how people move away from old mountains; people build mountains; people face challenges, and, most important, how people can abandon traditional evils. In this speech, King challenged the world’s moral foundation (or lack thereof). Such powerful truths. Truths that emerged from the metaphor of mountains. Is it any wonder that so many people hated and feared the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? For truth is the most terrifying threat of all.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Quotations from <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlktempleisraelhollywood.htm">this speech</a> are from AmericanRhetoric.com, an outstanding website established by my former classmate, the late Martin J. Medhurst. Marty was one of the top scholars in the history of United States public speaking, and his remarkable contributions are deeply missed. </i></div><div><br /></div><div>____________<br /><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Earlier Posts about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Rhetoric </b></span></p><p><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/08/martin-luther-kings-i-have-dream-made.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" Made Biblical Morality a Public Imperative</span></a></p><p><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/01/martin-luther-king-jrs-speech-love-law.html" style="font-family: arial;">Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech, "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience:" The Civil Rights Movement’s Philosophical Foundation</a></p><div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2020/07/did-donald-trump-turn-dr-martin-luther.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Did Donald Trump Turn Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. into a Conformist Right-Wing Fanatic? I Don’t Think So, but He Tried. Let’s Look at the Mount Rushmore Speech</span></a><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-law-cant-change-heart-but-it-can.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">"The Law Can't Change the Heart, but It Can Restrain the Heartless:" Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Church and the Struggle for Justice</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><i>For a complete list, enter "Martin Luther King" in the search box on the right. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><div><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">By William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Copyright <span style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© William D. Harpine</span></i></span></div></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Image: photo by <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:M_mousa_86" style="background: none rgb(248, 249, 250); color: #0645ad; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="User:M mousa 86">Mohammed Moussa</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Moses.jpg">Creative Commons license</a>, not edited</i></span> </span></div></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-76332121356520623702024-01-15T12:20:00.007-06:002024-02-03T23:47:14.208-06:00Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood" <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8BS9uTwIe6doy2mff5f4-71iYw9S68YFet8Gcz01aNojel02lP7Hq6o3MDobjcKeWxL37C62Uj4r6U26D1z2HCxmdolujl7aQpKv7xMt9K2uZR5vmIJ2E2d3CzpgwsCerC0gguS0H9U0uyPVPcm75kkS5GyiOQEuq57-_vSyAfwl48z1_EaftOTfoQWc/s1062/2021_United_States_Capitol_VOA_1_(cropped).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1062" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8BS9uTwIe6doy2mff5f4-71iYw9S68YFet8Gcz01aNojel02lP7Hq6o3MDobjcKeWxL37C62Uj4r6U26D1z2HCxmdolujl7aQpKv7xMt9K2uZR5vmIJ2E2d3CzpgwsCerC0gguS0H9U0uyPVPcm75kkS5GyiOQEuq57-_vSyAfwl48z1_EaftOTfoQWc/s320/2021_United_States_Capitol_VOA_1_(cropped).jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Trump speaking on January 6, behind protective glass</span></td></tr></tbody></table>On January 6, 2021, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-Trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial">a speech resonated</a> across the Washington, D.C. Ellipse that changed the United States forever. A speech that changed the United States for the worse.<br /><br />Just before the 2021 Capitol riot, President Donald Trump sprayed a “Firehose of Falsehood” to a huge, screaming crowd of his supporters. To set the public agenda, Trump unloaded a torrent of lies and misdirection to convince his devoted audience that the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen from him. The torrent of lies was so enormous and powerful, so utterly obsessive, as to overwhelm rational thought. He said:<br /><blockquote>“And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It’s a disgrace. There’s never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we’ve been going through in this country. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace.”</blockquote>That was just a question, and questions prove nothing. Of course, no one stole the election. In November 2020, <a href="https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/nov/20/fact-checking-false-claims-about-2020-election/">PolitiFact wrote that</a>, “Since Election Day, PolitiFact has fact-checked more than 80 misleading or false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. Federal agencies, state election officials and technology experts have all said this year’s election was among the most secure in American history.” <br /><br /> Trump continued by attacking the press and absurdly claiming that the crowd numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Then, Trump stated his thesis:<br /><blockquote>“Big tech is now coming into their own. We beat them four years ago. We surprised them. We took them by surprise and this year they rigged an election. They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.” [italics added]</blockquote>Pointedly, Trump made this assertion after his own Acting Deputy Attorney General, Richard Donoghue, had already told Trump that the <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/">election was not stolen</a>:<div><blockquote>“I said something to the effect of, ‘Sir, we’ve done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. We’ve looked at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada. We are doing our job. Much of the info you are getting is false.’”</blockquote></div><div>Nevertheless, in response to Trump’s speech, thousands of Trump’s supporters marched to the Capitol and many of them broke in, often with considerable violence. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/officer-who-responded-us-capitol-attack-is-third-die-by-suicide-2021-08-02/">More than 100 police were injured</a> during the attack, and a number of officers died shortly after. The January 6th rioters responded with enthusiasm to Trump’s speech, which consisted of a stream of falsehoods.</div><div><br />There is a name for Trump’s rhetorical technique: what RAND researchers Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews call the “<a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html">Firehose of Falsehood</a>.” Trump simply spewed out more lies than anyone had time or energy to question, much less refute. One lie after another, an overwhelming stream of lies, with little or no proof. Since he felt no need to support his claims, Trump simply spewed them out, like a firehose, drowning out all opposition. His stream of lies seized the public agenda. Even his opponents talk endlessly about Trump’s endless lies. His firehose would never have fooled a thinking audience, of course, for reasons that we’ll cover later in this post.<br /> <br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></b> <b><span style="font-family: arial;">The Firehose </span></b><br /><br />Trump’s speech rambled ceaselessly—and seemingly aimlessly—from one unsupported or false accusation to another, and then on to the next, with no effort to prove any of them. He overwhelmed his audience, and the public, with questions, conjectures, and wild accusations: a continuous spout of nonsense. The speech’s incoherence was a feature, not a flaw; for Trump’s entire argument was to drown his audience in falsehoods. <br /><br />Here are just a few of the claims he shouted at the crowd: <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#1, Trump claimed that the election was stolen</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said:</b><br /><blockquote>“All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing. And stolen by the fake news media.” </blockquote>Did Trump disprove Biden’s vote total? No. He just asked a question and made an accusation.<br /><br /><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br /><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2020">Ballotpedia found</a>, with all states and the District of Columbia certified, that:<br /><blockquote>“In the national popular vote, Biden received 81.2 million votes and Trump received 74.2 million votes.”</blockquote>Trump ignored a <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election">statement</a> issued on November 2020 by Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security:<br /><blockquote>“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.”</blockquote><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#2, Trump Claimed That the Vice President Can Overturn the Election</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said: </b><br /><br />Having claimed but not proven that the election was stolen, Trump then turned to Mike Pence to overturn the results. Trump stated falsely that the vice president had the authority to overturn the Electoral College votes and send them back to the states. He cited an <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/22/politics/jan-6-committee-final-report/index.html">unnamed lawyer</a> (possibly Kenneth Chesebro or John Eastman) to that effect:<br /><blockquote>“Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it.”</blockquote><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br />Pence, of course, did not have that right. His largely ceremonial role was to count the Electoral College votes. <a href="https://people.com/politics/new-book-details-how-dan-quayle-convinced-mike-pence-not-to-overturn-election/">Former Vice President Dan Quayle</a> told him privately that, “'I do know the position you're in. I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That's all you do. You have no power.'" <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#3, Trump Claimed That Votes Have Not Been Counted</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said: </b><br /><br />Instead of proving that Pence had authority to overturn the election, Trump switched gears in a flash and launched into more falsehoods. That’s the firehose technique. Trump uttered a bizarre claim that the vote totals had still not been determined.<br /><blockquote> “They still don’t have any idea what the votes are.” </blockquote>I have no clue where that claim came from. Apparently, neither did Trump, since he neither explained nor supported his claim. One quick sentence, a brief assertion that the votes were a mystery, and Trump’s firehose moved to a new target.<br /><br /><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br />In any case, as noted above, the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-votes-joe-biden-victory/">vote count was complete</a> by December 2020, when all states and the District of Columbia had certified their election results and the Electoral College voted. So, yes, the votes had been counted. <br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#4, Trump Connected the Coronavirus with Election Fraud</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said: </b><br /><br />Trump turned the coronavirus pandemic into a conspiracy to cheat him out of his election. Now, yes, during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, some states encouraged absentee voting to reduce contagion. Trump turned that simple precaution into an undocumented accusation:<br /><blockquote>“But this year, using the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots, Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft and there’s never been anything like this.”</blockquote>That is, Trump blamed the virus on the Chinese government (a common conspiracy theory), and assumed, again giving no argument, that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. Why are mail-in ballots a scam? He never said.<br /> <br /><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br /><a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/how-paper-ballots-could-save-the-election/">Chris Krebs</a>, a security expert with Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security, explained that mail-in ballots are highly secure because they are easy to double-check: <br /><blockquote>"Auditability is a key tenet of ensuring you can have a secure and resilient system. … Really what we're talking about here is that if you're able to detect any sort of anomaly or something seems out of the ordinary you want to be able to kind of roll back the tape. If you've got paper, you've got receipts, and so you can build back up to what the accurate count is." </blockquote>In other words, there is no reason to think that mail-in votes are fraudulent or inaccurate.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#5 Trump Bragged about the Economy</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said:</b><br /><br />Why would conspirators overturn Trump’s supposed election? Well, Trump told his audience that they were jealous of his accomplishments. Toward that end, Trump falsely (and briefly) claimed that his economy was a great success:<br /><blockquote>“We’ve created the greatest economy in history.”</blockquote><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br />Since unemployment in January 2021 was a staggering 6.4%, Trump’s claim was, to say the least, dubious. Did he give reasons to believe that he had “created the greatest economy in history?” No. Did his false claim about the economy in any way show that the election was stolen? No. He just zoomed to the next irrelevant falsehood.<br /><br />Also, the investigative team at <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump">ProPublica</a> noted that Trump left behind “the explosive rise in the national debt that occurred on his watch.” <br /><br />So, the facts fail to support Trump’s boast that he had “the greatest economy in history.”<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#6, Complained Vaguely About President Biden’s Son, Hunter Biden</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said: </b><br /><br />What Joe Biden’s drug-using son, Hunter Biden, had to do with election fraud, I cannot imagine. Nevertheless, Trump ranted about Hunter (a favorite target of Republicans) anyway:<br /><blockquote>“But Hunter Biden, they don’t talk about him. What happened to Hunter? Where’s Hunter? Where’s Hunter?” </blockquote>And that was all he had to say about Hunter Biden. What did Trump prove? Nothing; questions are not proof.<br /><br /><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br />Yes, Hunter Biden had personal problems. Trump was vague precisely because his comments about Hunter Biden were irrelevant.</div><div><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#7, Trump Complained That Late Votes Went for Biden </span></b><br /><br />Anomalies, however innocent, often trigger conspiracy theories. Trump noted, correctly, that many votes that were counted late swung toward Biden. The obvious explanation is that mail-in votes, which tended toward Biden, were often counted last.<br /><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said:</b><br /><br />But Trump instead implied that late votes mysteriously flip-flopped:<br /><blockquote>“That election, our election was over at 10 o’clock in the evening. We’re leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, by hundreds of thousands of votes.”</blockquote><br /><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br />Trump was right that he led battleground states early, but that was before the large cities and mail-in ballots were fully counted. I’ll talk about that below.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#8, Trump Claimed that Hillary Clinton Wishes Her Defeat Had Been Defrauded</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said:</b><br /><blockquote>“And the only unhappy person in the United States, single most unhappy, is Hillary Clinton. Because she said: ‘Why didn't you do this for me four years ago? Why didn't you do this for me four years ago? Change the votes, 10,000 in Michigan. You could have changed the whole thing.’ But she's not too happy. You know, you don't see her anymore. What happened? Where's Hillary? Where is she?” </blockquote><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br />There is no record of Hillary Clinton saying any such thing, and the alleged quotation is certainly not in her speaking style. Trump imagines two points: one, that Hillary Clinton agrees that Trump was cheated in 2020, which is something she is not on record to have said, and, two, that she wishes she had been elected fraudulently. He then fabricated a quotation and attributed it to her. This statement arises entirely from Trump’s imagination. Hillary Clinton did make some <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/factchecking-clintons-voter-suppression-claims/">poorly substantiated claims</a> of irregularities in the 2016 election, but that is not equivalent to wishing that the election had been rigged in her favor. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">#9, Were There More Ballots than Voters in Pennsylvania?</span></b><br /><br /><b>What Trump Said:</b><br /><blockquote>“There were over 205,000 more ballots counted in Pennsylvania. Think of this, you had 205,000 more ballots than you had voters. That means you had two. Where did they come from? You know where they came from? Somebody's imagination, whatever they needed.” </blockquote><b>The Facts: </b><br /><br />Trump referred to an obviously false claim that circulated on social media and Republican officials’ statements. As the <i><a href="https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/12/there-were-not-more-votes-than-voters-in-pa-ap-fact-check.html">Patriot-News</a></i>, the major newspaper serving Pennsylvania’s capital points out: <br /><blockquote>“Those claims are easily debunked. In Pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 7 million votes cast. The total number of registered voters in 2020 was just over 9 million.”</blockquote>Since 9 million is a larger number than 7 million, Trump was obviously wrong. <br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Many Lies, a "Firehose of Falsehood"</span></b><br /><br />Many lies. But the above list merely samples the torrent. Trump made many cursory, hostile, often irrelevant, and quite unsupported claims. A series of false claims. A firehose of dubious, unproven claims.</div><div><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Can Trump Be Refuted? </span></b><br /><br />Let us play make-believe and pretend that a Democrat had the same amount of time to speak to the same crowd. What could that person say? A general reality of debate is that a speaker needs more time to refute an argument than to make the original point, especially if the initial argument has no proof. (Since to prove something takes longer than merely to assert it.)<br /><br />Suppose that our Democratic speaker wanted to counter Trump’s claim that vote counts switched to Biden overnight. To understand the switch, we would need to remember that absentee and mail-in ballots broke heavily for Biden, and they were thus counted later in the process than the electronically recorded, in-person ballots. We might also note that large cities, which tend to be more liberal, need more time to count their votes. As <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27Q304/">Reuters note</a>s about Wisconsin: <br /><blockquote>“There was a jump in votes for Biden on the night of Nov. 3 to Nov. 4, but this was because Milwaukee County, home to the largest city in the state of Wisconsin, reported its 170,000 absentee votes, which were overwhelmingly Democrat.” </blockquote>Similarly, statistical researchers at <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-absentee-voting-looked-like-in-all-50-states/">FiveThirtyEight</a> found that absentee votes broke heavily for Biden, largely because of the coronavirus pandemic. Our Democratic speaker could quote FiveThirtyEight’s explanation word for word:<br /><blockquote>“It’s not hard to see why Trump, then, in his desperation to hold onto power, claimed that Democrats used mail ballots to steal the election from him. Biden indeed would not have won without mail votes, but there is no evidence that a significant number of these votes were cast fraudulently. Rather, the increase in their use was a response to the pandemic — one that was even encouraged by most election officials — and the fact that these votes were so Democratic is very likely due to Trump himself.”</blockquote>So, Trump’s claim can be <i>conclusively </i>refuted, but it cannot be <i>quickly </i>refuted. In the meantime, the Firehose of Falsehood can rage on.</div><div>___________</div><div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/05/liz-cheneys-courageous-speech-asking.html">Liz Cheney's Courageous Speech Asking Republicans to Reject Trump's False Election Claims</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/05/donald-trump-white-house-photo-on-may.html">Trump and Fact-Checking at the May 10, 2023 CNN Town Hall: Who Needs Facts, Anyway?</a></span><div>___________<span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><div><br /></div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">A Rhetorical Dilemma </span></b><br /><br />Now, do we see the problem? To refute just one of Trump’s most outrageous claims required research and explanation. Yet, Trump had spewed out his falsehood in a few seconds each. To refute all his unsupported false claims would occupy far more time than Trump used to state them. The result would be a speech of refutation that would drone on for many hours, and to which no one would listen.<br /><br />I have often pointed out that the winner of the debate is almost always the side that sets the agenda. If Trump’s Firehouse of Falsehood set the agenda, and it did, refutations would just sound like excuses. The Firehose overwhelmed reality.</div><div>___________</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2020/05/trump-china-virus-and-art-of.html">Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection</a></span></div><div>___________</div><div><br />So, Trump accomplished quite a lot of persuasion while offering scant evidence, but no truth.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">A Rhetorical Disaster? </span></b><br /><br />Obviously, Trump’s persuasive methods could only convince an audience that was not only fully committed and grossly uninformed, but also uninterested in critical thinking.<br /><br />In contrast, a more serious audience would want to hear evidence. A psychological theory, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) helps to explain the audience’s irrational responses. ELM says, among other things, that listeners who are unable or unwilling to analyze a message might, among other things, believe the message that makes the largest number of points. Trump also violated a basic principle of debate, which is that the person who makes a point is obligated to prove it. I’ll try to write more about those issues in the next few days.<br /><br />The rhetorical outcome was simple: Trump shaped powerful persuasive goals—and most (not some—most!) <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/">Republicans still wrongly believe</a> that the election was stolen. Trump’s Firehose of Falsehood worked. He set the agenda. Trump’s false outline, his cascade of untruthful claims, still occupies our national discourse. It’s the main thing politicians still talk about. Even his opponents incessantly talk about Trump’s falsehoods. And to what end? Stop one falsehood, and five others quickly replace it. That’s the firehose technique.<br /><br />Our nation is in trouble, and the hard work of critical thinking is the only cure. <br /><br /><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>by William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright © 2024 William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2021_United_States_Capitol_VOA_1_(cropped).jpg">Image: Voice of America, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span></i></div> </div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-43949097515946092382023-12-31T15:35:00.001-06:002023-12-31T15:57:27.723-06:00Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech, a Lesson in Positive JusticeThe freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear: those were the four freedoms that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed as he concluded his <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm">January 6, 1941 State of the Union Speech to Congress</a>. Roosevelt re-imagined government and world power as forces that would help people flourish. Unlike libertarians who just want governments to get out of the way, Roosevelt said that world governments should spread new freedoms. His controversial vision, which was dramatically new in 1941, shakes world and national opinion even today.<br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Roosevelt’s Vision </span></b><br /><br />As Roosevelt spoke, World War II (which the United States had not yet joined) raged across three continents. The world was still shaking from the Great Depression, and Roosevelt rewrote the word “freedom.” Here is Roosevelt’s vision of Four Freedoms:<br /><blockquote>“The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world. <br /><br />“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world. <br /><br />“The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world. <br /><br />“The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.”</blockquote>What motivated Roosevelt’s vision? First, the free enterprise economic system had collapsed in 1929 and the world, shaking from the fear of hunger and despair, increasingly turned to dictators to save them: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo. Never a good idea, but too many world citizens figured they had nothing to lose.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">What Is Positive Freedom? </span></b><br /><br />Now, the United States Constitution mostly protects <i>negative freedoms</i>: the government <i>cannot </i>do this; the government <i>cannot </i>do that. The government cannot establish a religion. The government cannot pass ex post facto laws. The government cannot force people to speak at their own trials. The government cannot randomly search your home or impose “cruel and unusual punishments.” And so forth. Those are negatives: things that the government is forbidden to do.<br /><br />Roosevelt, instead, proposed <i>positive freedoms</i>: the freedoms that enable successful lives. While negative freedoms only ask the government to get out of the way, positive freedoms require group vision.<br /><br />Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms gave a positive vision. He gave a vision of a world that could be free from the horrors that he felt had led to worldwide collapse. Can the reader disagree? How many people have died in religious wars? How often do cruel dictators suppress free speech? How often do nations turn to war only because they fear someone else? And does not want (hunger—homelessness—despair) become a terrible force that drives people to desperate acts?<br /><br />So, although Roosevelt did lay out policies that he wanted Congress to support, his real point was to offer a new concept. How, he asked, could we restructure the world to give people more successful lives? That is a positive vision. It is a vision that resonates today. It is a vision that leads to sharp disagreements today.<div><br /><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/12/franklin-roosevelts-pearl-harbor-speech.html">Earlier Post: Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/07/ronald-reagan-spoke-on-fourth-of-july.html">Earlier Post: Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity</a></span><br /><br /><div><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Four Freedoms Today? </span></b><br /><br />As 2023 draws to its close, nations across the world—Hungary, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and others unwisely turn away from republican government to <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2023/war-deepens-regional-divide">adopt authoritarian attitudes</a>. In <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/january-6-capitol-riot">January 2021</a>, the United States itself threatened to abandon constitutional government. Poverty still wracks even the most prosperous nations, and the marketing and unpacking of armaments rattles the world’s peace. Authoritarian forces are banning library books in the United States. Countless American children (not to mention world children) go to bed hungry. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms remain a distant, still-unattained goal. <br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">A Commitment to Freedom </span></b><br /><br />All the same, it is a speaker’s privilege to propose seemingly unattainable goals. Roosevelt projected a seemingly remote future in which the world would seek economic and political justice. Roosevelt gave a vision. Can we, in our coming new year, move forward, as a world, to improve all our lives? Or will we let fear and jealousy rule use? The world is richer than ever, but can we learn to respect one another? To help one another? To Roosevelt, this was a positive vision. It was not a vision of mealy-mouthed liberal weakness, but a vision of power and strength.<br /><br />For, behind the Four Freedoms, Roosevelt pledged his nation’s moral and military vigor. Accordingly, he concluded his vision of positive freedom with these breathtaking words:<div><blockquote>“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. <br /><br />“To that high concept there can be no end save victory.” </blockquote>Roosevelt taught a powerful lesson to a world that was shattered by poverty, injustice, and war. He gave a powerful lesson to a world that, in 1941, faced unspeakable disaster. His lesson reaches us in the 21st Century. Will we listen? Or not?</div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/04/abraham-lincoln-and-definition-of.html">Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time</a></span></div><div><br /><div>Let us never forget the disaster of the 1940’s, nor let us forget the horrors that “strong” leaders inevitably create. Let us never forget the massive sacrifices that eventually brought a smashed world to a shaky peace. My own father received two battle stars in World War II, serving in North Africa and southern France. He survived uninjured; some of his best buddies were not so lucky. My father-in-law was a combat-disabled World War II veteran, torpedoed by a Nazi submarine. My mother never again enjoyed Christmas, not after her 19-year-old brother lost his life fighting Nazis on December 26, 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge. Perhaps 50 million people died before the war ended. The largest part of the dead were massacre victims. If the nation, the world, returns to authoritarianism, it will have callously discarded their sacrifices. If we fail to uplift one another in a positive way, we will have discarded Roosevelt's lesson. <br /><br />For, as Roosevelt told us, freedom means more than just being left alone. Freedom is not “<a href="https://genius.com/Kris-kristofferson-me-and-bobby-mcgee-lyrics">just another word for nothin' left to lose</a>.” Freedom, Roosevelt said, means to live in a world of justice.</div><div><br /> <div>__________________</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Research Note: Several scholars have written about positive versus negative values. Kenneth Burke's <i><a href="https://www.target.com/p/the-rhetoric-of-religion-by-kenneth-burke-paperback/-/A-85743667?ref=tgt_adv_xsp&AFID=bing&fndsrc=tgtao&DFA=71700000012790841&CPNG=PLA_Entertainment%2BShopping%7CEntertainment_Ecomm_Hardlines&adgroup=SC_Entertainment&LID=700000001230728pgs&LNM=PRODUCT_GROUP&network=o&device=c&location=&targetid=pla-4585100929127865&gclid=b8cdcd065985171e234ea8978ddb2af0&gclsrc=3p.ds&ds_rl=1246978&ds_rl=1248099&msclkid=b8cdcd065985171e234ea8978ddb2af0">The Rhetoric of Religion</a> </i>is a good place to start. </span></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>by William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine</span></i></div></span></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-11727695990492438562023-12-30T14:20:00.014-06:002023-12-30T18:35:56.278-06:00Tweeters Need Research: The Sad Case of Governor Abbott and the Christian RightJust as speakers need to check their facts, so do politicians on social media. After the <i><a href="https://cmf.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/refugees-christmas-eve-abbott-texas-border-18567897.php">Houston Chronicle</a></i> published an impassioned editorial to remind readers that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were political refugees, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas posted this <a href="https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1739550449186095228">obnoxious post on X</a> (formerly Twitter):<br /><blockquote>“Chron doesn’t know the story of Mary & Joseph. They weren’t 'refugees' (look up definition) <br /><br />Read Luke 2:1-10 They were ordered by the govt to go to Bethlehem to register for the census. <br /><br />Nice distortion. Doing Devil’s work.” </blockquote><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSEIKzfC3AKInCvcqUvoaNtYayO-3SuKurZcT6bbuGTiaznr08wTBxkc_chYn9IK-bksBbzz1tzuVi03hEyQLiWkiO6411eftDxqpquGLE_WdQntKDP6gMDkIoCmrkbvLEBDYXJ7WLrbtQNEakSe0aXEbqTNMS_nns099nX8msfzeak7mP8BX4RzKIxmk/s668/abbott%20tweet.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="668" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSEIKzfC3AKInCvcqUvoaNtYayO-3SuKurZcT6bbuGTiaznr08wTBxkc_chYn9IK-bksBbzz1tzuVi03hEyQLiWkiO6411eftDxqpquGLE_WdQntKDP6gMDkIoCmrkbvLEBDYXJ7WLrbtQNEakSe0aXEbqTNMS_nns099nX8msfzeak7mP8BX4RzKIxmk/w339-h225/abbott%20tweet.png" width="339" /></a></div><br />Wow! “Devil’s work!” Strong words from a mass-going Catholic and scion of the Christian Right, who, evidently, needed to recheck the Bible. Reinforcing his ridicule, Abbott added 3 emoji of faces laughing themselves to tears. <br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Did Abbott Read All of the Gospels?</span></b> </div><div><br />But Abbott did not do his research. For the Holy Family’s refugee story is found, not in the Gospel of Luke, as Abbott imagined, but in the Gospel of Matthew. That is, traveling among Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, as described in Luke, did not make Jesus and his family refugees. According to Matthew’s gospel, however, they escaped their country and fled to Egypt to escape political persecution from King Herod. That is what made them refugees, but that story is not found in the Gospel of Luke! There are two stories of the birth of Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and Christians know to read both.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/03/mike-lee-tries-to-make-fun-of-green-new.html">Earlier Post: Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)</a></span><div><br />So, in the second chapter of Matthew (so you don’t need to read very far), we read the story of the Wise Men (or Magi). The Magi came from the east, following a star. (Surely Abbott has heard about the Star of Bethlehem? But, then, maybe not). The Magi told King Herod that:<br /><blockquote>“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matthew 2:6 KJV)</blockquote>This disturbed Herod, who figured that he, not some upstart from Bethlehem, was governor of Judea. So, forging a crafty plan, Herod told the Magi:<div><blockquote>“And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.” (Matthew 2:8 KJV)</blockquote>The Magi found Jesus and gave him gifts of “gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11 KJV). However, being warned in a dream, the Magi did not return to Herod and took another road home. Enraged, malicious, and fearful (like most dictators), Herod ordered that all boys under the age of two should be put to the sword (Matthew 2:16). This would, he figured, ensure that the future upstart governor would meet his end. <br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Escaping to Egypt to Avoid Political Execution</span></b><br /><br />The Holy Family foiled Herod’s plot, however, for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph became political refugees. Having been warned in a dream, Joseph collected his family and fled to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter. They remained there, safe from political persecution, until the king died:<br /><blockquote>“And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. </blockquote><blockquote>“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:13-14 KJV). </blockquote>After Herod’s death, Joseph received another dream (many dreams in this story) that Herod had died. Joseph took his family to Nazareth, and the gospel narrative continued.</div><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2018/06/romans-13-jeff-sessions-and-cultural.html">Earlier Post: Romans 13, Jeff Sessions, and the Cultural Heritage of Conservative Immigration Policy</a></span><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Research</b></span><b><span style="font-family: arial;"> Is Important</span></b><br /><br />So, let the reader recognize Governor Abbott's astonishing arrogance. Not only did he fail to make even the most minimal effort to look at the biblical accounts of Jesus’ birth, but he snarked at the <i>Houston Chronicle’s</i> writers, who obviously had read the Bible. Abbot said: <br /><blockquote>“Nice distortion. Doing Devil’s work.” </blockquote>Just as speakers need research, so do politicians who post on social media.<br /><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-80mqARxQFn6IERvTWlopQ3DrW4b4yie_1oVOtYXsRC_ouk09YJNNjr0F9wcCp-DmY0GqFrdU6iurvOJaJk9rHD0Qfo0ziqN1eyzs6MacFEH8bXIR37pG2CETVdjUCd-ojMA2H1pnX7Cc3pZQ2bGMdteQOYbMnwWyiUr4Q0kW7XolVRDzNAh-6e9OML4/s3765/nativity%20%202.JPG" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1814" data-original-width="3765" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-80mqARxQFn6IERvTWlopQ3DrW4b4yie_1oVOtYXsRC_ouk09YJNNjr0F9wcCp-DmY0GqFrdU6iurvOJaJk9rHD0Qfo0ziqN1eyzs6MacFEH8bXIR37pG2CETVdjUCd-ojMA2H1pnX7Cc3pZQ2bGMdteQOYbMnwWyiUr4Q0kW7XolVRDzNAh-6e9OML4/w373-h180/nativity%20%202.JPG" width="373" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Nativity Scene, Shepherds on Left, Magi on the Right</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />It is, on the one hand, bizarre that Governor Abbott, who loves to appeal to conservative Christian voters, did not know the familiar story. After all, almost every Christmas creche scene features the Magi (Gospel of Matthew) visiting the baby Jesus, lying in a manger (Gospel of Luke), right next to the shepherds (Gospel of Luke) who also paid a call. Still, on the other hand, Abbot’s mistake reminds us of the object lesson: that we should check our facts before we speak.<br /><br />The sad part is that Abbott’s obviously cruel, inaccurate account of the Bible story might gain him votes from the Christian Right. <br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>______________________<br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. The underlying complexity, of course, arises because a narrative of Jesus’ birth only appears in two places in the Bible. In Matthew, we encounter the Star of Bethlehem, the Magi (or Wise Men), the flight to Egypt, and the slaughter of the innocents. In Luke, we read the Magnificat. We then find (still in Luke) that Jesus was laid in a manger and was visited by shepherds, following which the family traveled </span><span style="font-family: arial;">peacefully</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: arial;">to Jerusalem and Nazareth. Abbott is aware, obviously, that the Gospel of Luke does not feature any political refugees. If only Abbott had also read Matthew, the very first book of the New Testament! </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />The Magi, of course, were priests of the Zoroastrian faith.<br /><br />As the reader can see, the different accounts of Jesus’ birth are, well, different, and I will let theologians argue about whether they are, or are not consistent, as well as whether they do, or do not, possess any verifiable historical accuracy. Anyway, today (December 30) is the traditional fifth day of Christmas (the count starts on December 26 for some traditional reason), so, maybe, if you are lucky, your true love will give you five golden rings today. One can always hope!<br /><br />The <i>Chronicle </i>gave a <a href="https://www.chron.com/culture/religion/article/greg-abbott-refugees-devils-work-18578461.php">polite, well-argued response</a> to Abbott’s attack.</span> </div><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;">My wife, Dr. Elaine Clanton Harpine, bough the pictured lovely, hand-carved nativity scene while she was still in school. </span><div><br /></div><div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>by William D. Harpine<br /><br /></i></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine<br /><br /></span></i></div></div></div></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Nativity Scene Image: William D. Harpine, </span></i><i style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">© 2023</span></i></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-54520711890482402512023-12-21T10:59:00.004-06:002023-12-22T12:09:04.016-06:00President Ursula von der Leyen Attacked Antisemitism On December 11, 2023, during the lighting of the Euro-Chanukah, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen quoted the traditional saying:<br /><blockquote>“The darkness of the whole world cannot swallow the glowing of a candle.”</blockquote>This European ceremonial lighting marked the start of the Jewish celebration of the lights. Addressing the horrors of antisemitism, von der Leyen redefined the controversial concept of diversity. Drawing unity from diversity, she stood in the long tradition of speakers who find truth in the rhetorical trope of paradox.<br /><br />Von der Leyen began <a href="https://ejpress.org/speech-by-european-commission-president-von-der-leyen-at-the-lighting-of-the-euro-chanukah/">her brief speech</a> by extending the Jewish tradition to all peoples: <br /><blockquote>“Chanukah is of course an ancient Jewish tradition. But I believe it speaks to <i>all </i>human beings.” [italics added] </blockquote>Von der Leyen’s simple statement contradicts our usual concept of diversity. For we most often say that we must find a way to create unity despite diversity. She insisted, instead, that diversity creates unity.<br /><br />A paradox reveals hidden truths behind a seeming contradiction. Diversity and unity would seem to undermine one another. Yet, von der Leyen insisted that religious diversity <i>created unity</i> in European political affairs, that it pulled Europeans together. Thus, antisemitism becomes, in contrast, a cruel force that tears Europeans away from one another.<br /><br />Having stated that basic value, von der Leyen remarked about the horrifying rise of antisemitism in Europe:<br /><blockquote>“An old evil is resurfacing in Europe. Swastikas have been painted on the homes of Jews. Synagogues have been vandalised. Jewish children have been locked in their schools because the streets are not safe for them.”</blockquote><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2018/10/donald-trump-speaking-in-illinois.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Earlier Post: Donald Trump's Awkward Speech about Antisemitism<br /></span></a><p>Von der Leyen reminded her audience that the festival represented Jewish freedom of religion against persecution. This argument led her to speak for a public policy, she advocated protecting all places of worship, beginning with synagogues. She also advocated policies that suppressed hate speech on the Internet. Like many ceremonial speakers before her, she used values to support a political program.</p>Finally, von der Leyen returned to her opening paradox, to find “unity in diversity:”<br /><blockquote>“Europe stands for ‘united in diversity’. For centuries, European Jews have shaped our common heritage. Think of Marc Chagall and Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Rahel Hirsch and Hannah Arendt. And you still do shape our common heritage. This is why we will create a new award to celebrate Jewish cultural heritage. Because Jewish culture is a blessing to Europe, and we should all know more about it.”</blockquote>Opposition to diversity, in general, and antisemitism, in particular, does not just strike at Europe. For, in the United States of America, the very concept of unity has openly created anger and discord. Von der Leyen did not merely say that we should accept diversity. She said that diversity created unity. She said that the fact that we have different religions and beliefs creates strength, not division. It was antisemitism, she insisted, not diversity, that drove people apart.<br /><br />This thought led von der Leyen to look toward a hopeful future in which we would return to an “age-old value:”<br /><blockquote>“We must bring new energy to our age-old value of unity in diversity. This is also the spirit of Chanukah. It is not only a celebration of the past but a time to renew our hopes for the future with the confidence that ‘weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning’.”</blockquote>Her quotation was from Psalm 30 in the Hebrew Scriptures. At no time did von der Leyen deny the growing horrors of antisemitism. Instead, she looked for hope by returning to ancient values.<br /><br />As a United States citizen, I found myself struck by the calm, morally assured vision that von der Leyen brought to the growing religious and political conflicts that seek to disrupt the modern world. She redefined how we think about diversity. She gave a rhetorical lesson that the entire world can heed. Are we listening?<br /><br /><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/10/ursula-von-der-leyen-sometimes-even.html">Earlier Post: Ursula von der Leyen Warned Us of the Totalitarian Winds</a><br /><br /><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-solution-to-climate-change-is-in.html ">Earlier Post: The Solution to Climate Change Is in the Cities: President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award</a></span><br /><div><br />___________________<br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Theoretical note: </i>A trope (such as “paradox”) is a linguistic device that changes the way we use or think about a word or phrase. <a href="https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/tropes.html">This article</a> gives a quick rundown of tropes. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>by William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine</span></i></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-49925929982072921042023-12-10T15:30:00.015-06:002023-12-12T08:14:26.201-06:00University Presidents Needed Better Communication Skills during the Congressional Hearing. Here Are Some Tips. <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt3tLUrovGIWo0s2tljQ7xx9AqPxZmdvB-eD47HHKboRe_-NizV6jA1KK3C0p5Z4po13jkGXzaRcK0C7_uSngIUrxMnEbQe_8H79keEeC5DOx2n7HhCkG2e3v2pfiNAhL-ezaUyFfFkaS4jVoaRmHg5IzWNQiiZbovoVxCxKzsV0OOXMYurZtTtu7iDAM/s943/Harvard_University,._November,_2019._pic.a1a_Cambridge,_Massachusetts.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="707" data-original-width="943" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt3tLUrovGIWo0s2tljQ7xx9AqPxZmdvB-eD47HHKboRe_-NizV6jA1KK3C0p5Z4po13jkGXzaRcK0C7_uSngIUrxMnEbQe_8H79keEeC5DOx2n7HhCkG2e3v2pfiNAhL-ezaUyFfFkaS4jVoaRmHg5IzWNQiiZbovoVxCxKzsV0OOXMYurZtTtu7iDAM/s320/Harvard_University,._November,_2019._pic.a1a_Cambridge,_Massachusetts.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Harvard University</span></td></tr></tbody></table>“What action has been taken against students who are harassing and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard's campus?”<div><br /></div><div>Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked that seemingly simple question of Harvard President Claudine Gay.<br /><br />At the December 7, 2023 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bn95MFQNPY">congressional hearings to investigate antisemitism</a> on campus, three top university presidents were called on the carpet and lambasted by Stefanik because they upheld the right of certain students to express deeply unpopular opinions. In particular, some anti-Israel students were speaking and demonstrating for a holy war and the destruction of Israel. Many Jewish students were feeling threatened, to say the least.<br /><br />In accordance with the law, the university presidents were right, and the Republicans were just plain wrong. Free speech in America is almost absolute, and hate speech, pretty much no matter how awful, is legal. There is no hate speech exception to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the university presidents allowed themselves to be bullied. They made factual but ineffectual responses to the Republicans’ questions. The public is in an uproar and almost everyone, <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pressure-grows-on-harvard-president-claudine-gay-after-penn-s-liz-magill-resignation/ar-AA1li1xC">from left to right</a>, sides with Stefanik against the university presidents. What could the presidents have done better?<br /><br />Let’s look at a few examples. I’ll focus on the well-publicized, much-maligned performance of Harvard President Claudine Gay. Dr. Gay needed to be more precise on the facts, while she also needed to reset the abusive process while projecting more confidence.<div><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>When someone asks a question, phrase the responses precisely. </b></span><br /><br />Stefanik asked Gay:<br /><blockquote>“Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard’s code of conduct or is it allowed at Harvard?”</blockquote>That sounds like a fair question, doesn’t it? Gay droned her rote response:<br /><blockquote>“We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It’s when that speech crosses into conduct that it violates our policies against bullying ….” </blockquote>At that point, Stefanik interrupted and shouted that anti-Jewish hate did cross that boundary. Now, under the First Amendment law, which applies to colleges and universities under various court rulings, Stefanik was wrong. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment protects hate speech.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/12/elise-stefanik-was-wrong-and-hateful.html">Previous Post: Elise Stefanik Was Wrong, and Hateful Speakers Are Allowed on Campus</a></span></b><br /><br />Calling for genocide is horrible, but it is not an immediate, specific threat, and therefore it’s constitutionally protected speech. Gay’s response was right out of the legal handbook and was, I imagine, briefed for her by Harvard’s legal department.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Gay’s response sounded vague and impassive. She droned legal platitudes in a slow, distracted voice. Could she have done better? Well, yes, she could have done much better. Try this, for example:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical response</span>: “As an institution of higher education, Harvard is absolutely required to obey the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The courts have emphatically ruled that even extremely horrible speech is protected by the First Amendment. In fact, we cannot make a rule that prohibits vile and offensive speech, because the courts have ruled over and over that hate speech must be allowed.”</blockquote><p>That would be a better response because it states the reasoning behind the rules that Harvard follows. </p><p><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Challenge the abusive questioning process.</span></b></p>However, as the reader will recall, Stefanik had interrupted Gay, blocking her attempt to respond. That abused the communication process. So, here is another hypothetical response. After being interrupted, Gay could have said:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical Response:</span> smile and ask, “I would very much like to answer your question. May I do so?”</blockquote>If that doesn’t work, it would be time to get a bit more vigorous, but still sounding self-disciplined:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical Response:</span> “Congresswoman, you are asking important questions and short, glib answers are not going to be adequate; may I please answer your question?” </blockquote>More forceful hypothetical response: </div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical Response:</span> “Congresswoman, with due respect to your high office, why are you asking important questions if you won’t let me explain my answer?”</blockquote>Or, if that doesn’t work:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Emphatic Hypothetical Response: </span>“Congresswoman, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the First Amendment is part of the Constitution. Since you studied government at Harvard, I expect you to understand the First Amendment. May I explain how the courts have ruled on these questions?”</blockquote>If the speaker gets badly irked:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical response:</span> “Congresswoman, you are asking questions that I’d like to answer thoughtfully. But every time I try, you interrupt and shout at me. May I please answer your question?”</blockquote><p> <br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">If you are being vague, explain why you cannot be specific. </span></b></p>Speakers, like Dr. Gay, need to be careful when they use technical terms. Otherwise, their arguments get lost. Gay confused her listeners with a technical term about education law. Stefanik asked: “What actions have been taken against those students?” Gay’s response:<br /><blockquote>“Given students’ rights to privacy and our obligations under FERPA, I will not say more about any specific cases other than to reiterate that processes are ongoing.”</blockquote>The overall public neither knows nor cares about FERPA. However, everybody in higher education has been drilled about FERPA (<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974</span></a>). When I worked at universities, we were all required to pass periodic FERPA training. This federal law strictly protects student privacy. Among many other things, FERPA covers student disciplinary procedures, even in extreme cases, and university personnel may not violate student privacy by sharing the results or processes of student discipline.<br /><br />I had plenty of experience with this. Even parents are often ineligible to see their children’s records (Congress passed a bunch of arcane rules about parents’ rights.) I sometimes had to tell parents that I could not answer questions about their children. Remarkably, when the FBI and Navy recruiters came to ask us about various students over the years, they needed to show the university’s records office that they had the student’s written permission or a lawful subpoena. Seriously. Worse, I served on university disciplinary boards for years. FERPA makes the disciplinary procedures confidential. FERPA is one tough law. <br /><br />Anyway, after hearing about FERPA, Stefanik soon gave this angry response: “This is why I’ve called for your resignation, and your testimony today, not being able to answer with more clarity, speaks volumes.” That was nonsense. There was no reason for Dr. Gay to put up with that. Try this:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical Response: </span>“Congresswoman, I am not responsible for the laws Congress passed to protect student privacy. These disciplinary procedures are totally confidential under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. I didn’t pass the law; Congress did. I regret that it is illegal for me to answer your question. If you don’t like the law, you, and not I, are in a position to change it. That’s because you’re in Congress, and I am not. I don’t see why you want to fire me just because you don’t like a law that Congress passed.”</blockquote> That specific answer would, I would hope, at least calm Stefanik’s bullying. <br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Change the ground of the debate </b></span><br /><br />The winner of a debate is the side that sets the ground. That is, the winner is not necessarily the side that has the best issues, but, more often, the side that decides what questions to ask. Stefanic laid her groundwork by making wild accusations and refusing to let Dr. Gay explain her answers. On that ground, she will win every time. Gay sounded awkward and intimidated, and her answers were just too safe.<br /><br />You can’t stop a congressional bully by uttering vague platitudes that your lawyer fed you. You need to be specific. You need to reset the debate on your own ground. Put the burden back on Congress, where it belongs. How about:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical Response:</span> “The things that are going on are often awful, but we at Harvard must follow the law. If you don’t like the law, if you are against a high level of free speech and assembly, if you don’t think students should have a legal right to privacy, which of us is in a position to change the law? Because it isn’t the President of Harvard.”</blockquote>I’m sure that Stefanik would continue to yell, but the debate would now be on more even ground. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Delivery </span></b><br /><br />Also, delivery matters. Cicero said so thousands of years ago. It’s still true. Dr. Gay was quiet and hesitant, and she seemed flustered. Of course that doesn’t work. You can’t be obsequious in front of a bully any more than you can lie down in front of an angry German shepherd. Dr. Gay needed to speak up. She didn’t need to shout like Stefanik, but she needed to sound confident and self-assured. Stop leaning into the microphone. Sit up straight. Take your glasses off and wave them around. (That worked for President Dwight Eisenhower, who was also soft-spoken.) Have a copy of the Constitution in your hand (preferably on yellowed fake parchment) and rattle it in front of the microphone. Get off the defense. Defensive speakers lose. Take charge. Sound like you are in charge. Help the audience see that Stefanic was behaving poorly. Presentation counts.<br /><br />Stefanic was trying to use Gay for a stage puppet, so don’t sound like a puppet.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Counterplay </span></b><br /><br />Anyone who has followed Republican politics, even at the most superficial level, could have predicted everything that Stefanik said during this hearing. Gay did not sound as if she cared about the Jewish students. Her responses were vague and sounded guarded. She needed to say more to show she cared. Dr. Gay needed counterplay. </div><div><br /></div><div>Gay also needed to show that she cared about Jewish students who felt intimidated by campus demonstrations. Harvard had already established <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/11/10/gay-antisemitism-education-email/">on-campus programs</a> to deal with antisemitism and these were well publicized on campus. Gay should have talked more about programs for students who felt victimized by campus events. <br /><br />Indeed, she should have set up even more such programs, however hastily, before she traveled to the Capitol. Have these universities done enough to protect students and to guarantee a safe learning situation? I think not. Jewish and other students have every reason to be distressed, even though this ridiculous congressional hearing didn’t get to any authentic issues. I’ll try to write soon about communication solutions that are legal and might help the situation.<br /><br />Gay could, and probably should have, given a pre-Congress, on-campus, open-to-all speech in which she criticized demonstrators who had become hostile, while, at the same time, making sure that the campus understood that the demonstrators had strong First Amendment rights. (She had already given written statements to the Harvard community, although they were probably <a href="https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2023/war-in-the-middle-east/">too vague</a> to punch through the controversies.)<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;">Hypothetical campus speech: </span>“I deplore these awful demonstrations and I condemn their message, but I will defend to my last breath the protestors' constitutional right to assemble and speak as long as they are peaceful. I will defend any of your rights the same way.”</blockquote>Too late for all of that. Propaganda won, I guess. <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Conclusion </span></b><br /><br />But did propaganda need to win? On the one hand, academic people tend to be diffident. Even aggressive academics, like university presidents, tend to be more controlled than the general public. On the other hand, many politicians are confrontational. That does not mean that the university presidents needed to disintegrate as they did. There are many ways to confront bullies, and they don’t require a person to act like a bully in return. Maybe my ideas will help a congressional witness in the future.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6EzWCbwh-qPQRGKF4ablLxfhe4JRcZsQiv3ovYHjnw-ecfybD6Ovmi83WyTy20yDrfF5Le5-liAslgteWW7SpTNKBwjQI3Oxg7fiz7CIB3-dS8TYuds6MWj737wfVs4MwxrOyjN8UXPfEEAYD0tX7kBn0DXjFBdKxC2lFglHFZFQEVX5Mew80OcLQdrw/s3440/point%20of%20light%202%20edited.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2464" data-original-width="3440" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6EzWCbwh-qPQRGKF4ablLxfhe4JRcZsQiv3ovYHjnw-ecfybD6Ovmi83WyTy20yDrfF5Le5-liAslgteWW7SpTNKBwjQI3Oxg7fiz7CIB3-dS8TYuds6MWj737wfVs4MwxrOyjN8UXPfEEAYD0tX7kBn0DXjFBdKxC2lFglHFZFQEVX5Mew80OcLQdrw/w335-h240/point%20of%20light%202%20edited.jpg" width="335" /></a></div><br />I will end with a personal story. </div><div><br /></div><div>After retiring from his career as an attorney with the Department of the Interior, my father did volunteer legal work with the American Association of Retired People. His role was to represent indigent Americans who had been unjustly deprived of their Social Security benefits. It was a hard job, with wins and losses. President George H. W. Bush gave him a Points of Light Award for his service. In the course of his work with the AARP, my father testified before a congressional committee. A conservative southern congressman went off on a rant about useless government bureaucrats and wasteful government spending. (You’ve heard all that many times, I’m sure.) This irked my father, who responded like this:</div><div><blockquote> I am proud of my government service. I am proud of my service in the Army during World War II and Korea. I am proud of my two battle stars. I am proud of my 25 years with the Department of the Interior.</blockquote>The congressman apologized.<br /><br />So, bullies don’t need to win. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>by William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright <span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; text-align: right;">©</span> 2023 William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Image of Harvard University:</i> <i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; text-align: right;"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harvard_University,._November,_2019._pic.a1a_Cambridge,_Massachusetts.jpg" style="color: #3778cd; text-decoration-line: none;">David Adam Kress, Creative Commons License</a></i></span></div><div><br /></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-60795832904466329492023-12-08T19:19:00.010-06:002023-12-13T22:05:07.836-06:00Elise Stefanik Was Wrong, and Hateful Speakers Are Legally Allowed on Campus. Universities Can't Stop Them Even if They Want to. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHaVM1qqye9_oh5nj8mPmUdv2luC-GfrKT31mgz7bFuz3HFD0Z4xa4S8elLjL7t38lzCm6J45VsaxqTNi-x6pZAUsfoItkD7hjWhZB95vYD9P4Q25QKrIRGYoKbnRpcAzNwexZ7ZVLoDYTPbIl4wmnaeuUIkvUXn2iUBwvBtos-hmVY3YPzAtZ2w65_dU/s850/Bill%20of%20Rights.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHaVM1qqye9_oh5nj8mPmUdv2luC-GfrKT31mgz7bFuz3HFD0Z4xa4S8elLjL7t38lzCm6J45VsaxqTNi-x6pZAUsfoItkD7hjWhZB95vYD9P4Q25QKrIRGYoKbnRpcAzNwexZ7ZVLoDYTPbIl4wmnaeuUIkvUXn2iUBwvBtos-hmVY3YPzAtZ2w65_dU/s320/Bill%20of%20Rights.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Bill of Rights, National Archives</span></span></td></tr></tbody></table>Anti-Israel protestors on university campuses are sometimes saying terrible, evil, awful things. As we learned in yesterday’s congressional hearings, some members of Congress want universities to stop that. Sorry, nope, universities have no legal power to stop peaceful speech or demonstrations, no matter how offensive they might be. The Constitution protects even the vilest protests. Can Harvard President Claudine Gay, who was vigorously questioned in yesterday’s hearing, actually stop, restrict, or punish anti-Israel or anti-Semitic protests? No. That would actually be illegal.<div><br />As the <a href="https://www.mass.gov/news/hate-speech-law-in-massachusetts">Massachusetts court system</a> explained in 2017:<br /><blockquote>“The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution</a> guarantees the right to freedom of speech and the press. There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.”</blockquote>At yesterday’s hearing, several Republicans, notably including skilled conspiracy theorist Elise Stefanik, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bn95MFQNPY">lambasted three university presidents</a> because they had failed to stop angry anti-Israel, anti-Jewish demonstrations. She accused the presidents of a “<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stefanik-targets-university-presidents-over-lack-of-moral-clarity-on-antisemitism/ar-AA1lcSxP">lack of moral clarity</a>.” Don’t those demonstrations violate the code of conduct, she asked? Are the protestors being punished? Why are universities allowing hate speech? In turn, the university presidents responded by mumbling, explaining complexities, citing the privacy laws that Congress itself had passed, and evading the questions. After my many years of experience in higher education, I can assure you that the presidents carefully parroted everything the university’s legal team told them to say. Stefanik stomped on them as if they were bugs and she was the exterminator. Members of the public and press, from left to right, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/opinions/israel-palestine-antisemitism-american-universities-zakaria/index.html">have almost universally sided</a> with Stefanik and against the universities. </div><div><br />There’s only one problem: under American law, the university presidents were absolutely correct. Stefanik was embarrassingly wrong. Hate speech is awful—that’s why we call it hate speech—but the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment erect an almost impenetrable shield that protects people who express their views, even when those views amount to hate speech. In our system of government, the only cure for evil speech is to respond with truthful, noble speech. Since almost all universities accept federal financial aid, they are, in general, just as obligated to protect free speech, including wicked speech, as any government agency. Exceptions are few, few, few. <br /><br />So, let’s look at the law. The First Amendment says:<br /><blockquote>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”</blockquote>It says, “no law.” It does not say, “no law unless we are offended.” The Fourteenth Amendment carries the same protection to the state level. Free speech specialist <a href="https://www.natcom.org/communication-currents/regulating-hate-speech-college-campuses">Crag R. Smith points out</a> that speech, including hate speech, falls under the First Amendment’s protection. If hate speech represents a viewpoint, the Constitution protects it. Smith mentions the 1969 case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/">Brandenburg v. Ohio</a>, which ruled that an Ohio law against violent speech was unconstitutional. In that case, the Supreme Court vacated the conviction of a member of the Ku Klux Klan who threatened to commit violence against certain groups of people. </div><div><br />In the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/">Brandenburg</a> case, a group of armed Klansman said things like this: they threatened to bury Black people, they said “Send the Jews back to Israel,” and they stated that a Black man would need “to fight for every inch he gets from now on.” These were obviously awful things to say, but they did not embody any direct threat to a particular person and, therefore, ruled the Court, the Constitution protected them. Indeed, the court stated that “A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing <i>imminent lawless action</i> and is likely to incite or produce such action.” [italics added] <br /><br />“Imminent lawless action” is an extremely rigorous standard; otherwise, free expression of offensive speech must be upheld. The Court’s ruling was unanimous.<br /><br />In a more recent case, <i><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/">R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul</a></i>, the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment protects such hateful symbols as cross burning and displaying Nazi symbols. The court firmly ruled that the city could not outlaw cross-burning under the stated reasons, although cross-burning could be prosecuted as trespassing, arson, or whatever, according to the circumstances. <br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/08/dont-fear-protests-free-speech-on.html"><span style="font-family: arial;">Earlier Post: Conservatives Think Controversial or Offensive Speakers Should Appear on Campus</span></a><br /><br /><br />Overall, as <a href="https://thelawdictionary.org/article/the-legalities-of-hate-speech/">The Law Dictionary</a> summarizes, no law in the United States restricts hate speech:<br /><blockquote>“In the United States, there are no laws against hate speech. Due to rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s <a href="https://thelawdictionary.org/first-amendment-2/">First Amendment</a>, a person can say just about anything he or she wants to another person or group. By itself, such speech is allowed to take place without penalty under the law.</blockquote><blockquote>“A person hurling insults, making rude statements, or disparaging comments about another person or group is merely exercising his or her right to free speech. This is true even if the person or group targeted by the speaker is a member of a protected class. According to U.S. law, such speech is fully permissible and is not defined as hate speech.”</blockquote>Similarly, attorney <a href="https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/can-public-universities-ban-hate-speech-on-campus">Lee Rowland</a> shows that students and faculty on campus have free speech rights, and these rights do not bend when speech becomes hateful, disgusting, or offensive:<br /><blockquote>“As a general matter, when people use the term hate speech, they’re often referring to identifiably hateful, often racist or sexist speech that demeans people based on characteristics they can’t change. Under the First Amendment, that language, no matter how disgusting or offensive we find it, and I certainly do, is still protected. That doesn’t change on a public campus.”</blockquote>Since no right is absolute, there are a few exceptions. In terms of college campuses, Smith points out that hostile environments create a different situation. If you are subjected to harassment in the workplace or in class, where you have no recourse to leave, you are protected. In those cases, the victim is trapped in what is called a “captive audience,” where protection against harassment is available. Harassment is one of the very few exceptions to absolute freedom of speech. We’ve already talked about “imminent lawless action.”</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2023/07/conservatives-and-fear-of-rainbows.html">Earlier Post: Conservatives Object to a School Song about Rainbows</a></span><br /><br />Under the United States of America’s Constitution and laws, as repeatedly emphasized and supported by federal courts, we have almost unlimited rights to express political opinions and other opinions. It makes no difference how awful or offensive other people might find them. The fact that anti-Semitic speakers appear on campus and speak, wave signs, and shout that Israel should be destroyed makes the students wrong, but it does not mean that the university itself is anti-Semitic. It only means that people have a Constitutional right to speak. And universities have no legal right to stop them.</div><div>__________</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. I will soon post more about this topic, including suggestions as to how the university presidents could have responded to Stefanik more effectively. </span></div><div>__________</div><div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Important note: </b>I am not an attorney, and this essay is not legal advice. My only purpose is to comment on the rhetoric of this dispute, and not to tell you what you should or should not do if you face a free speech situation. Free speech law is complicated; no right is absolute, and there are exceptions to all our rights. I am not qualified to guide you on those issues. If you have a free speech decision or need accurate information about your rights, see an attorney. As my late father (who was an attorney) liked to say, “Don’t do something and then ask me if it was legal. Ask me before you do it!” </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">It could be noted that Harvard, like many schools, promises free expression to its students and this, as I understand it, is a legal obligation. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><br /><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Copyright <i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">©, William D. </i></span><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #444444; font-size: x-small;"><i>Harpine</i></span></span></div><br /><br /></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-14936611298196448222023-12-07T11:31:00.005-06:002023-12-07T14:17:52.516-06:00Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own TimeToday is the anniversary of Japan’s December 7, 1941 attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor. The next day, December 8th, President Franklin D. Roosevelt <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrpearlharbor.htm">spoke in Congress</a> to ask for a declaration of war. His speech’s eloquence has often been admired. Let us instead, look, today, at Roosevelt’s supreme, absolute expression of confidence. Together with that absolute confidence, Roosevelt promised that the United States would never again be vulnerable to treachery. A nation’s first requirement is to offer security to its citizens. As the United States today faces terrible threats both from within and without, let us remember that key message. Roosevelt’s speech had a message for us in 2023, if we are willing to listen.<br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The Promise of Victory </span></b><br /><br />At the time of crisis that December 7 created, Roosevelt saw no need to persuade Congress that we were at war. The war had come. Instead, Roosevelt promised that the United States of America would use all its resources and efforts to defeat the enemy. He proposed a commitment:<br /><blockquote>“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” </blockquote>That simple statement reminded Congress—and the people—that the road to victory would be long. He stated the “righteous might” of Americans, while promising an outcome of “absolute victory.”<br /><br />At the same time, I cannot help but to be impressed by Roosevelt’s expression of humility: he did not arrogantly say that he had the right to speak for all of America. Instead, he said that “I believe.” He stated his <i>belief </i>that he was following the people’s will, not that he had a right to change their will to agree with his. A leader, not a dictator.<br /><br /><div><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Never Again! </span></b><br /><br />Also, and equally striking, Roosevelt promised that the United States would forever more protect itself against similar unprovoked attacks. He did not just commit himself, but all future leaders to safeguard the United States of America:<br /><blockquote>“I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, <i>but </i>will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall <i>never again endanger us</i>.” [italics added]</blockquote>Sadly, not all presidents since remembered Roosevelt’s promise. The September 11 terrorist attacks against New York and Washington caught us flat-footed. I fear that we are not taking enough precautions about the insidious attacks against our elections that foreign actors launch using social media. The <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download">Mueller Report</a>, which examined Russian interference in the 2020 election, documented those attacks with great precision; sadly, however, his message was lost in a cacophony of political turmoil. <br /><br />A nation like the United States of America must protect its values of representative government and personal liberties during wartime. That poses a difficult challenge, and no president has met it with perfection. Roosevelt recognized, however, that every government must protect its people against foreign invasions. His warning passed through his own time to the future, and we, today, are the future.<br /><br />Later today, I intend to write about Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s reminder that, ever since World War II, the leadership of the United States has been fundamental to world order and the fight against oppression. That is another part of Roosevelt’s message that we may have forgotten: to be “righteous.” <br /><br />Take a moment, please, to remember the 2,403 Americans who died at the Pearl Harbor raid, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans, including my teenage uncle, whose lives were lost fighting in the war that followed: not to mention the millions of service people, including my father and father-in-law, who served during the terrible, worldwide conflict. Let us also remember that cruelty can give way to hope, as the United States has today become fast friends with our former enemies of Japan, Italy, and Germany. Is not peace with justice the cure for war?</div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">by William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div><br /><div>________________</div><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial;">Earlier Post, discusses Roosevelt's use of epideictic speech methods: </span><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/12/franklin-roosevelts-war-message.html" style="font-family: arial;">Franklin Roosevelt's War Message, December 8, 1941</a><div><div><br />________________</div><div><br /><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Research Note:</b> There are many excellent academic studies of Roosevelt’s speech. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637756609375508">This superb article by Herman Stelzner</a>, which was required in communication graduate schools back in my day, is a classic: Hermann G. Stelzner (1966) “'War Message,' December 8, 1941: An Approach to Language," S<i>peech Monographs, 33:4,</i> 419-437. Although it is behind a paywall, many large libraries can access it from their databases. </span></div></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Copyright <i style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">© 2023, William D. Harpine</i></span></div><div><br /></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-82133965280250027122023-11-26T16:06:00.005-06:002023-12-21T20:29:08.553-06:00Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural SpeechWhen he gave his <a href="https://worldfuturefund.org/Reports2013/hitlerenablingact.htm">inaugural speech</a> to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, the day he assumed power as Reich-Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler laid out a comprehensive economic, political, and religious program. As the founding member of the modern Christian Right, Hitler insisted that Germany could be saved, not by Marxism’s materialistic philosophy, but only by unselfishly sharing Christian values. <i>His speech laid out a moral calling. </i>It was a twisted moral calling, but his moral calling bore enough similarities to the Christian Right of today that it is worth a look. . <br /><br />To be sure, Hitler’s version of Christian morality never mentioned mercy, forgiveness, salvation, or generosity. Instead, Hitler talked about Christianity as a social grouping. The nation could achieve unity and solidarity by working from a religious heritage. Christianity was, to Hitler, first and foremost, a movement that could correct the movement toward Marxism. Adherence to Christian groupings could, he explained, bring individual families into solidarity. Christianity could enhance national loyalty. Hitler’s Christianity was about unity as a common people. Other religions were rejected as incompatible with the unity that Christianity could provide. In contrast to Marxism, which was materialistic, Christianity could, Hitler explained, move the German people into a sense of commonality: “Volk,” as he said.<div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2020/06/joe-biden-donald-trump-and-christian.html">Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us What We Should Have Known All Along: There Are Two Different Christianities</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/01/adolph-hitlers-christian-nationalist.html">Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span>From context, Hitler’s inaugural address promised to restore Christian virtue to correct what he called the damaging encroachments of democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, all of which he painted with the same brush. The speech laid out a strict dichotomy: atheism or Christianity (as Hitler defined Christianity), no other ground being conceivable. <br /> <br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Marxism as the Disease?</span></b><br /><br />To Hitler, Marxism was the disease that rotted the German public. Hitler’s thesis was to advocate the so-called <a href="https://www.vaholocaust.org/law-to-remove-distress/">Enabling Act</a>, which effectively dissolved the German legislature and gave the chancellor’s cabinet almost unlimited political power. The law’s necessity lay in what Hitler said was the post-World War I Weimar Republic’s decision to adopt Marxist rule:<br /><blockquote>“In November 1918, the Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a Revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of Reich and Länder removed from office, and thus a breach of the Constitution was committed.”</blockquote>Indeed, steeped in religious symbolism, Hitler called Marxism “this demonical doctrine.”<br /><br />Marxism, Hitler insisted, eroded German will by driving people toward material goods rather than encouraging loyalty to nation and family. Hitler laid out a stark contrast between the evils of Marxism, which he contrasted with the noble foundations of (his version of) Christian morality. He called those opposing views “irreconcilably opposite.” Indeed, he insisted that liberal philosophy of any kind inevitably led to “communist chaos:”<br /><blockquote>“Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery. The disintegration of the nation into irreconcilably opposite Weltanschauungen which was systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism means the destruction of the basis for any possible community life.<br /><br />“The dissolution permeates all of the basic principles of social order. The completely opposite approaches of the individuals to the concepts of state, society, religion, morality, family, and economy rips open differences which will lead to a war of all against all. Starting with the liberalism of the past century, this development will end, as the laws of nature dictate, in <i>Communist chaos</i>.” [italics added]</blockquote>Liberalism, communism, democracy, moral evil—in Hitler’s terms, these were all the same disease. Could Christianity cure that disease? <br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Christianity as the Cure?</span></b><br /><br />Indeed, to resolve Marxism’s horrors, Hitler insisted that Christian moral values would permeate the Reich’s government. Christianity would, Hitler said, reinforce family loyalties while encouraging patriotism. Atheism would have no part. Indeed, his government would employ Christians exclusively: <br /><blockquote>“The advantages in personnel policy which might result from compromises with atheist organizations do not come close to offsetting the results which would become apparent in the general destruction of basic moral values.<br /><br />“The National Government perceives in the two Christian confessions the most important factors for the preservation of our Volkstum. It will respect any contracts concluded between these Churches and the Länder.”</blockquote>Thus, Hitler laid out a strict dichotomy between Christians and atheists, as the only two possibilities that the Reich could envision. (The “two Christian confessions” were, presumably, the Catholic and Protestant faiths.)<br /><br />To implement his approach, Hitler did not support the separation of church and state, but, rather, an “honest coexistence:”<br /><blockquote>“The Government’s concern lies in an honest coexistence between Church and State; the fight against a materialist Weltanschauung and for a genuine Volksgemeinschaft equally serves both <i>the interests of the German nation and the welfare of our Christian faith</i>.” [italics added]</blockquote>Hitler’s religious views extended to foreign policy towards the Vatican, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic faith. This was not merely a political convenience; no, on the contrary, the Christian faith must be, Hitler emphasized, the nation’s “unshakable foundation:”<br /><blockquote>“Similarly, the Reich Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethics and morality of the Volk, places great value on friendly relations with the Vatican and attempts to develop them.”</blockquote>That is, although Christian sects had long squared off against one another, Hitler’s goal was religious unity. A conflict between Christian churches could only weaken his political control. It was not Hitler’s purpose to take sides in doctrinal disputes (about which he could not have cared less), but to use the Christian faith to survey common ground and encourage German nationalism.<br /><br />Overall, like many American and European conservative speakers today, Hitler harshly attacked communism while offering the Christian faith as the exclusive saving alternative.<div><br /><br /><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The Christian Right</span></b><br /><br />The Christian Right of today continues to view Christianity as spiritual warfare. Instead of emphasizing moral social behavior, Christian Right leaders often talk about a war between Christians, defended by conservative leaders, and demonic forces, supposedly defended by liberals. For example, minister Paula White said this about Donald Trump:<br /><blockquote>“Let every <i>demonic network</i> that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.” [italics added] </blockquote><p><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/06/paula-white-prays-against-trumps.html " style="font-family: arial;">Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate</a></p><p>White unwittingly echoed Hitler’s definition of Christianity, making Christianity a force that protected people from liberal values. Similarly, <a href="https://twitter.com/robertjeffress/status/1267590804140363776">Rev. Robert Jeffress</a> prayed (on Twitter!) about warfare between liberals and Christianity:</p><blockquote>“Thank God for a President like @realDonaldTrump who is intent on protecting our great country from anarchists who are trying to destroy it. As the Bible says, ‘Sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4).”</blockquote>If such views are popular today, is it any wonder that Germany, which was in 1933 still wracked by the Great Depression, found Hitler’s view so inspiring? Hitler roundly condemned communism, which, in the wake of Stalin’s purges, was renowned for violence and cruelty. Renouncing Marxist materialism, Hitler spoke for German unity based on nation, family, and the Christian faith. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Conclusion</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Avoiding doctrinal disputes, Hitler expressed profound acceptance of all versions of Christianity. That made perfect sense, as it was Christianity’s social power, not its teachings, that moved him to speak. <br />Thus, Hitler found Germany’s salvation, not in physical power, but in a common religious perspective.<br /><br />In his personal life, Hitler was no more active in religion than, for example, American presidents Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, who were both darlings of the American Christian Right. Indeed, at no time in the speech did Hitler take a stand on such Christian values as compassion, forgiveness, mercy to foreigners, or the like. Instead, Hitler twisted Christian morality to become the salvation of a nation that faced, he said, great danger from Marxist wickedness.<br /><br />So, Hitler’s speech was not about what Christianity was for. His speech was about what Christianity was against, and what it was against was Marxism. Similarly, Hitler downplayed the Enabling Act’s destruction of democratic checks and balances. Instead, he called Germans to national unity and moral recovery.<br /><br />Conservatives have long called their opponents communists, regardless of any conflicting details. In 1933, this was absurd on its face. The Weimar Republic, although incompetent and ineffectual, was no more a Marxist organization than was Nazism. Although Hitler’s speech made only vague references to Judaism, it is remarkable that he found morality only in the Christian faith, ignoring the larger Judeo-Christian tradition. Of course, although the Holocaust would not adopt its full horrors for another eight years, Hitler had long before laid out his deep hatred of German Jews.<br /><br />Unfortunately, false dichotomies can kill. Just over 12 years after this stirring speech, Hitler’s Reich collapsed in disgrace, its promises shattered by war. Hitler committed suicide, leaving Germany in a smoking ruin. His name today is a synonym for evil. <br /><br />Hitler’s rhetorical success sounds a stark warning for our own century. Germany in 1933 was industrialized, a center of religion, philosophy, education, music, and art. If Hitler could convince Germany to quash democracy with a single vote of the legislature, to make Christianity a unifying political force, to implement a stark dichotomy, a sort of spiritual warfare, between Christianity, on the one hand, and Marxism on the other, excluding all possible room in the middle—well, if that kind of rhetoric could work in Germany, it could work anywhere. It could work, once again, in western Europe. It could work in the United States of America. How slow we are, indeed, to remember history’s simplest lessons.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">By William D. Harpine</span></i></div><div><i>_______________</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. Historical predecessors of the Christian Right are not hard to find. See <a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2019/08/rev-witherspoon-and-christian-right-in.html">this example</a>.</span></div><div><i>_______________</i></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span>Copyright </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">© </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">William D. Harpine</span></span></i></div></div><div><br /></div></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-82544182837935914352023-11-23T10:11:00.002-06:002023-11-26T16:00:47.587-06:00President Biden Gave a Speech for Two Turkeys and Used it to Draw Our Nation Together in Common Cause<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOKo9RItyTjfGWXrJ_dLCSiNJWVUebx3ZbA8Ydzw1MURPurvStrTWGCF02FbCM7HG4nO_r-QWmt38KZv9Ilv8y1WCYL_UPo1QYspDWEjBseD63o3QsSrIBZ-A9X2dKvcpBVEw1G61YqNGvo22WBgccFgw2qBDWpjbuUNZZn40G2kozaHHhK3RTo9Y-yRs/s1707/Joe%20Biden,%20White%20House%20photo.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="1707" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOKo9RItyTjfGWXrJ_dLCSiNJWVUebx3ZbA8Ydzw1MURPurvStrTWGCF02FbCM7HG4nO_r-QWmt38KZv9Ilv8y1WCYL_UPo1QYspDWEjBseD63o3QsSrIBZ-A9X2dKvcpBVEw1G61YqNGvo22WBgccFgw2qBDWpjbuUNZZn40G2kozaHHhK3RTo9Y-yRs/s320/Joe%20Biden,%20White%20House%20photo.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Joe Biden, White House photo</span></td></tr></tbody></table>A standard and absolutely ridiculous United States custom is for the President of the United States to kick off Thanksgiving season by offering a presidential pardon to two turkeys. This year, the turkeys were named Liberty and Bell. Rising above the silly situation, Biden used the opportunity <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/11/20/remarks-by-president-biden-at-pardoning-of-the-national-turkey-2/">to give a short speech</a> to remind us of American values and ambition. He asked us to work together. He gave a good message.<i> </i>Is anyone listening? For Biden reminded a nation (a nation that is <i>not </i>listening) of this great commonplace:<br /><blockquote>“… let us remind ourselves that we are blessed to live in the greatest nation on this face of the Earth. (Applause.)”</blockquote>Biden wandered happily along, praising the Liberty Bell, honoring Americans who have passed away, and praising the farmers who provide the magnificent harvests for which we are so grateful today. <br /><br />Critically, however, Biden ended his speech by asking Americans to overcome the divisions that have marked us so harshly:<br /><blockquote>“And let’s remember: We are the United States of America, and there is nothing — nothing, nothing — I mean this sincerely — nothing beyond our capacity <i>when we work together.</i> We’ve never come out of a situation, a bad circumstance not — without being better off when we come through it. And this is always who we are as Americans.” [italics added]</blockquote>As American politics are increasingly wracked, not only by political conflict, but by increasing numbers of bizarre conspiracy theories, Biden reminded all of us that we can accomplish anything “when we work together.” With so many Americans today denigrating the very concept of government, Biden’s message that we need to work together in unity resonates with depth and power.<br /><br />Of course, a simple speech honoring two turkeys attracts little attention from the public. Is that Biden’s fault? Or is it ours? Should he have made his point on a better occasion? Should he have spoken more forcefully? Or should we and the press listen more carefully? The press meekly notes that the president participated in a silly ritual. Ignoring the values lesson, <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/biden-confuses-taylor-swift-britney-spears-at-turkey-pardon/vi-AA1kfGNj">Fox News obsessed</a> that Biden mixed up entertainers Taylor Swift and Britney Spears.<br /><br />President Biden expressed an important value, the value of common cause, but his mild, positive speech could hardly compete with the cacophony of <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/11/21/jan-6-video-footage-new-footage-mike-johnson-conspiracies">conspiracy theories</a> about the January 6th Capitol riots or Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/11/10/donald-trump-says-he-might-prosecute-opponents-if-elected-in-2024/71529727007/">wild promises</a> to imprison his political opponents. While manufactured outrage dominates our political discourse, simple patriotism fades into the distance. Is it too late? Or can we, indeed, accomplish anything if we work together? Or, is <i>no one listening</i>?<div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><i>by William D. Harpine</i></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b style="font-family: arial;">Earlier Posts:</b></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2021/06/joe-bidens-juneteenth-speech-used.html">Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/11/was-biden-divisive-or-was-he-right-to.html">Was Biden Divisive When He Defended Constitutional Government?</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div>________________</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/president-biden-pardons-the-thanksgiving-turkeys-at-the-white-house-transcript">Alternate transcript</a> of Biden's talk. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>________________</div><div><i><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: right;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">Copyright </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: small; text-align: right;">© </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: small; text-align: right;">William D. Harpine</span></i></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442792195568558714.post-84409293119022824782023-10-26T13:06:00.005-05:002023-10-26T17:36:26.860-05:00Ursula von der Leyen Warned Us of the Totalitarian Winds <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ7W3MjrP0Y3HUNZIMIpRsnrI-eOi_ILIuIQ_X4NR8hpVmAx22zJR1WNNXlL9LDDNQ5o3GQ2CI6Yl3Aryr3wqxTnBI2nfTQ9S3PNGXOV7vm9Eb1O9kp9VUFN3cVhGwj4z5BtkN5CAZw3ih3I89MfVoX7lLoiLi43aIURENrDP3HVNcDLMCTR_8b_m3X1o/s1200/Ursula_von_der_Leyen_presents_her_vision_to_MEPs_2.jpg" style="clear: right; display: inline; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="801" data-original-width="1200" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ7W3MjrP0Y3HUNZIMIpRsnrI-eOi_ILIuIQ_X4NR8hpVmAx22zJR1WNNXlL9LDDNQ5o3GQ2CI6Yl3Aryr3wqxTnBI2nfTQ9S3PNGXOV7vm9Eb1O9kp9VUFN3cVhGwj4z5BtkN5CAZw3ih3I89MfVoX7lLoiLi43aIURENrDP3HVNcDLMCTR_8b_m3X1o/s320/Ursula_von_der_Leyen_presents_her_vision_to_MEPs_2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ursula von der Leyen</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Sometimes even the tritest metaphor brings great power to a public speech. Metaphors express our values. So, we might ask, how are the winds of history blowing? What about the attacks that totalitarian regimes launch against seemingly stable democracies? On October 19, 2023, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen <a href="https://eac.org.ua/en/news/speech-by-president-von-der-leyen-at-the-hudson-institute-2/">spoke at the Hudson Institute</a> in Washington DC. She warned the assemblage that freedom was under worldwide attack. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the outbreak of violence between Hamas and Israel especially alarmed her. Winds, she said? No, she insisted, the attack on freedom was at “gale force:”<div><blockquote> “The winds are not just blowing today. Today, they are at gale force. Our democracies are under sustained and systemic attack by those who abhor freedom because it threatens their rule. For more than 600 days now, our friends in Ukraine have been fighting and dying for their freedom against Russian aggression. And now, Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history, and the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust.” [italics supplied]</blockquote>Von der Leyen pointed out the common barbarity of Hamas and Russia in their terrible wars:<br /><blockquote>“Russia and Hamas are alike. As President Zelenskyy has said their ‘essence is the same”. Both have deliberately sought out innocent civilians, including babies and children, to kill and take hostage.” </blockquote>Continuing her argument, von der Leyen insisted that the winds of evil can be stopped. The defeat of representative government is not written in stone. As she reminded the Institute, the democratic nations defeated fascist forces around the world during World War II:<br /><blockquote>“We have not forgotten that in World War II, democracy won over fascism and autocracy. This triumph set the foundation of our peace order. And this is not only about the past, but it will also define our future.”</blockquote>So, von der Leyen was right. We must learn from the past. We look to the past to understand the future. We rely on our basic values. So often, people think that authoritarian and fascist governments are stronger than the world’s democracies and constitutional republics. History emphatically refutes that view. She reminded her conservative audience that the historical lesson rings true today. <br /><br />In the United States Congress, support for the Ukrainians is under emphatic attack from major Republican leaders, while <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4276005-these-democrats-voted-against-resolution-backing-israel/">a few Democrats </a>have expressed reluctance about supporting Israel in its fight against Hamas. Surely, while she never mentioned names, von der Leyen timed her speech well.</div><div><br /></div><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/02/why-do-republicans-praise-vladimir.html "><span style="font-family: arial;">Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?</span><br /></a><div><br />The foreign policy implications of current world conflicts are complex, and I have no foreign policy expertise. Still, can we remember von der Leyen’s metaphor, that “gale force” winds are attacking the world order that has brought us prosperity and which has kept us free from World War for decades. She stated to all of us that history is on the side of freedom. She reminded us that vicious, murderous regimes bring their countries to bad ends.<br /><br />The Hudson Institute is a conservative think tank that is sometimes associated with the neocon movement. Von der Leyen, a voice for European conservativism, called for unity, not discord, between Europe and the United States and the struggle for freedom. Her simple metaphor of “gale force” winds reminds all of us that we face horrible challenges.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://harpine.blogspot.com/2022/02/european-president-ursula-von-der-leyen.html">European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis</a></span><br /><br />Peace, justice, and prosperity must always be supported by wisdom. The speech received little attention in the United States, despite the influential audience to which she addressed it. The American press is more interested in Biden’s gaffes or Donald Trump’s temper tantrums. Von der Leyen ignored the squabbling details of American and European politics, relying instead on moral values drawn from history.<br /><br />Indeed, calm, reasoned, and thoughtful rhetoric should never go out of date. As we face terrifying winds, let us acknowledge them, at the same time that we remember the blessings of living in free countries.</div><div><br /></div><div>______________</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">P.S. Von der Leyen, a conservative German leader, faced up to her nation's Nazi past in this speech. I'd love to hear more American conservatives rise above our own past. What do you think? </span></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>by William D.Harpine</i></span></div><br /><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>© Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine</i></span></div></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: right;"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ursula_von_der_Leyen_presents_her_vision_to_MEPs_2.jpg" style="font-size: small;"><i>Image: European Union, via Wikimedia Commons</i></a></div><br /><br /></div>William Harpinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15109400199335552479noreply@blogger.com0