Is The Coronavirus an Invisible Enemy? Donald Trump’s Second-Most Influential Speech

Coronavirus, CDC image

Former president Donald Trump delivered his second-most influential speech during a Coronavirus Task Force Update on March 16, 2020. The coronavirus pandemic was the gravest crisis that Donald Trump faced (or failed to face) during his presidency. It inevitably gave rise to his two most influential speeches. I wrote about his “their new hoax” speech a couple of months ago. Now, let us look at the second one, where he called the virus “an invisible enemy.” He helped people pretend that they could ignore the virus. People do not avoid public health measures because they value freedom more than life. No, they ignore the coronavirus because Trump helped them pretend it wasn’t a big deal. No, the virus was invisible, just as unsafe water and gamma radiation are invisible. Out of sight, out of mind. 

Earlier Post: “And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

Trump’s most important speeches helped his supporters escape from reality. Trump helped people think that he did a great job with the pandemic - by downplaying it. Let us recall that many presidents have given influential speeches about momentous national and international issues. Trump himself gave such speeches. In contrast, however, Trump’s rhetorical response to the virus boiled down to two influential phrases: “This is their new hoax,” in February 2020, and “An invisible enemy,” in March 2020. Why should we wear an itchy mask or take a vaccine to protect ourselves from “their new hoax?” Why should we pay attention to an “invisible enemy” that we cannot even see? Nothing that Trump said in any speech mattered more than the clever way he underplayed the pandemic. 

Just as in February 2020, Trump’s March comments laid the groundwork for endless conspiracy theories. In February 2020, Trump had called the virus a hoax. By March, however, enough people were dying that it was no longer satisfying to call the virus a hoax. But what if the whole thing was not really a hoax, but merely invisible? And therefore easy to ignore? And, so, Trump continued to leapfrog across reality.

Just as with his “their new hoax” speech, it was one brilliantly-worded phrase that helped Trump lead his supporters away from reality. Everything else Trump said could be normal – except for the single crucial phrase. Trump’s idea – the invisible virus – the invisible enemy – still reverberates across our nation. A September 2021 Gallup poll concluded that: “Republicans retain the lowest vaccination rate of any major subgroup of Americans.” There are many reasons for this. Crucial, however, is that Trump reinforced the view that the virus didn’t matter much. 

So, by using his March 16, 2020 Coronavirus Task Force Update to remind people that the virus was invisible, Trump led his listeners away from the pandemic’s deadly reality. He cleverly did so while simultaneously noting that the pandemic was horrible:

“I just say this. We have an invisible enemy. We have a problem that a month ago nobody ever thought about. I’ve read about it. I read about many years ago, 1917, 1918. I’ve seen all of the different problems similar to this that we’ve had. This is a bad one. This is a very bad one. This is bad in the sense that it’s so contagious. It’s just so contagious, sort of a record setting-type contagion. The good part is the young people they do very well and healthy people do very well. Very, very bad for older people, especially older people with problems. My focus is really on getting rid of this problem, this virus problem. Once we do that, everything else is going to fall into place.” [Italics added]

That passage, was as a whole, pretty reasonable. Trump said that the pandemic was “very bad.” He said that it was “a record-setting-type contagion.” He emphasized that it was “very, very bad for older people.” How sensible! But the virus was also “invisible.” And we all know that, deep inside, many people don’t really believe in things they cannot see. That is how the soundbite made the difference.

Unfortunately, we live in the soundbite era. The press did not, for the most part, pick up Trump’s comment that things were “very bad” or “record-setting.” No, the press picked up on the virus being “invisible.” CNN later even ridiculed the idea, headlining: “Trump’s task force invisible as cases surge again.”

Donald Trump was nothing if not master of the soundbite. He said many of the right things in that March 2020 update. All the same, it was a soundbite – “invisible enemy” – that captured public attention. We can easily ignore unseen dangers. Radiation? Viruses? Carbon monoxide? Unseen carcinogens in our plastic bottles? If we don’t see something, we can pretend it’s not there. If we pretend it is not there, we don’t need to let it trouble our lives. We can pretend that we don’t need to watch our cholesterol. We can pretend that we don’t need to worry about toxins in our food. We can pretend that we don’t need to take a vaccine. Yes, Republicans all the time talk about their “freedom” to ignore public health. That misses the point. No one really wants to become deathly ill or die while gasping for breath. People don’t ignore the virus because they value their freedom. They ignore the virus because they can pretend it isn’t a big deal. Trump’s two most influential speeches came down to two influential phrases: “Their new hoax.” “An invisible enemy.” He helped his supporters ignore the virus. And, unfortunately, here we are.

_________________

Earlier Post: Trump Lived in Two Opposite Coronavirus Realities

Earlier Post: Trump Used Medical Quackery to Divert Attention from Coronavirus Issues

Elaine’s Post: Misinformation Kills; Has Your Child Been Vaccinated? Or, Are You Waiting?

_________________

P.S.: Thanks to the good people at the rev.com, transcription service; they have archived so many excellent speech transcripts. 

P.P.S. I hope all my readers had a wonderful, peaceful, and healthy Thanksgiving. 

Joe Biden's Delta Variant Speech: Showing Leadership on the Coronavirus Pandemic

Biden Speaks about Coronavirus Vaccinations

Politicians give people easy, superficial solutions to their problems. Leaders, however, tell people the truth. If your options change with the latest polls, you're a follower, not a leader. Joe Biden’s recent White House speech urging Americans to get vaccinated against the coronavirus showed leadership.

We’re facing a tough battle against the novel coronavirus, and, as dangerous new variants evolve, the worst may still be ahead of us. Republican politicians, following Donald Trump’s example, tell us to open up, let natural immunity protect the survivors, rip off our masks, skip the vaccine, and tell us that everything will be fine. Republicans like Arkansas’ Rick Crawford imply that the novel coronavirus is no worse than the common cold. He says that as dozens of children, ill with the coronavirus, fill his state’s intensive care wards. Many Republicans spout anti-public health attitudes. That is the opposite of leadership. Indeed, Republican-led states like Florida and Missouri are seeing record highs in infections and deaths.

President Joe Biden is not taking that easy route. Instead, he is trying to show leadership. In this speech, Biden warned us that we have a tough fight. He talked about serious measures to combat the pandemic. In a speech of leadership, it makes sense to warn us about dangers, to avoid easy solutions, and to give people a positive course of action that gives them hope. Speakers like Franklin Roosevelt and William McKinley showed leadership. That was also Biden's undertaking.

Franklin Roosevelt's War Message, December 8, 1941


Biden Gave a Warning
During his speech, Biden offered this sobering commentary:

“I know this is hard to hear. I know it’s frustrating. I know it’s exhausting to think we’re still in this fight. And I know we hoped this would be a simple, straightforward line, without problems or new challenges. But that isn’t real life. We’re coming out of the worst public health crisis in 100 years, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

That’s not the way to get quick, easy votes. People do not like to be frustrated. Voters don’t like to hear things that are, well, “hard to hear.” We’re all tired of the virus. We’re tired of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. So, let's look at what Biden said.  

First, Biden’s warning preempted the superficial thinking of people who think that we can wish the virus away: “I know this is hard to hear. I know it’s frustrating.” That was smart. If you’re going to give people tough solutions, you can’t pretend that everything will be easy.

Second, Biden acknowledged the feelings of people who are tired of public health restrictions: “I know it’s exhausting to think we’re still in this fight.” Instead of arguing with their feelings, Biden admitted that they have real concerns.

Third, Biden warned his listeners that reality is always a challenge: “And I know we hoped this would be a simple, straightforward line, without problems or new challenges. But that isn’t real life.”

Having warned us about tough challenges, Biden next offered solutions. 

Biden Gave People Hope
If you want people to act, you can’t leave them in despair. Persuasion experts have known this for at least a century. Biden combined his message of hope with a nice dose of national pride:

“My fellow Americans, this nation has never failed when we have come together as the United States of America. So I say to all those who are unvaccinated: Please — please get vaccinated.

“And to the rest of America: This is no time to be despondent or let our guard — our guard down. We just need to finish the job with science, with facts, with the truth. And together, as Americans, we’re going to be able to beat this.”

First, Biden’s message of hope pointed that the United States could face any challenge: “this nation has never failed when we have come together.”

Second, he warned us that it was too soon to “let our guard down.” The job isn’t finished. It does seem that, every time the virus takes a brief holiday, the voting public thinks everything is over and we can go back to normal. The virus unfortunately, has voted otherwise. We still face a challenge, and a good leader has to warn us about it.

Third, Biden came down straightforwardly in favor of science, facts, and truth. In a world where the other political party talks about “alternative facts” (i.e., lies), and routinely makes fun of science every time a new research study comes out, Biden came out for truth. That was risky but wise. Truth is often unpopular. People often dislike hearing the truth. We cannot, however, solve our problems by playing make-believe.

Fourth, and finally, Biden gave people positive courses of action. Take a vaccine: “please get vaccinated.” He said to continue with public health measures. He advised us not to think that the virus is finished until it’s actually finished. But he also told us not to give up hope, to take a positive attitude: “This is no time to be despondent or let our guard down.” Again, persuasion experts know that people are only going to act if they think their acts will make a difference. Biden took time to assure his listeners that they could do things that would help.

Yes, the former president, Donald Trump, gave people easy solutions – quack medicine cures like bleach injections or hydroxychloroquine. Many of his supporters, apparently, agreed that such cheap, effortless solutions were the way to go. Real life, however, isn’t so easy, and a true leader doesn’t just respond to public opinion. 

Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Trump, the "China Virus," And the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection

Donald Trump was not a leader – he was a follower who said whatever his supporters wanted to hear. He did not lead his people; he mimicked them. He followed the polls, listened to the cheers, and said what was popular. In contrast, a true leader guides people toward success. Biden warned people that things will be hard, but he offered hope and recommended actions to help.

Will it work? Not everyone is willing to be led. Still, Biden made a good effort in this speech, and I hope that America is listening.

P.S. Did Trump rely heavily on opinion polls? Yes, he certainly did. Joel Pollak, one of Trump’s top campaign people, explains the secrets in his book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.

Research note: if you want to learn more about persuasive communication, my former professor Charles Larson wrote one of the best introductions to the subject.

Image: White House YouTube Channel

Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC image

In a recent commentary, Tucker Carlson said: “To say it in unison – and they’re all saying it – that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is simply untrue, that’s a lie.” Strong words! However, public health authorities’ point is that the vaccines are highly effective. Carlson’s rebuttal was that the vaccines are not completely effective. Carlson’s point is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy. That is, Carlson implied that the vaccine is either effective or it is not – all or nothing. That is a fallacy because no vaccine works all the time.

People commit the false dilemma fallacy when they tell us that we only have two choices when, in fact, we have many. A vaccine might be perfect. A vaccine might be imperfect. Those are not, however, the only two choices. As Kathy Katella of Yale Medicine points out, the current vaccines used in the United States are 86%-98% effective in preventing severe coronavirus infections. Although that is an excellent result, it’s not perfect.  In Texas, for example, 99.5% of coronavirus deaths were among persons who were not vaccinated. Similarly, North Carolina health officials report that 94% of new coronavirus cases are among unvaccinated patients.

Still, if a tiny percentage of the serious illnesses occur among vaccinated people, does that prove that the vaccines do not work? Or does it merely prove that they are slightly imperfect?

To perpetuate his false dilemma fallacy, Carlson first cited British public health authority Sir Patrick Vallance, who said that 40% of British coronavirus hospital patients have been fully vaccinated. Carlson’s conclusion: “it makes you wonder how effective are these drugs anyway.”

Carlson contrasted this figure against what he said were promises made by American officials: “In the U.S., they’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine. The only people getting dangerously sick or dying from COVID are the people who refused to get the vaccine.” In part, of course, Carlson was working with ambiguous or overstated comments by American officials, such as President Joe Biden’s comment that “The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and they’re killing people.” (Biden could, of course, have phrased his point more precisely.)

Did you notice Carlson’s rhetorical trick? “They’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine.” I assume he meant to say “everyone,” not “no one.” In either case, “everyone” and “no one” are absolutes. The false dilemma fallacy requires us to think in absolutes, in all-or-nothing terms. Carlson was leading his audience astray, for public health doesn’t deal in absolutes.

Carlson next slipped in one additional step: he sarcastically said that we are being told that “the only people getting sick are the ones who for political reasons have refused to get the vaccines. How many times have you heard that in the past month? As they continue to politicize medicine – almost at an irrecoverable point.” Again, notice the trick: “the only people.” Not most people, not almost everyone, but the only people. Another absolute.

Carlson's next target was CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who said that “This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We are seeing outbreaks of cases in parts of the country that have low vaccination coverage because unvaccinated people are at risk.” She continued that: “communities that are fully vaccinated are generally faring well.” She then pointed out that people who are unvaccinated were very much at risk.

Walensky worded her statement pretty carefully. Carlson, however, exaggerated her point just a little bit to get to his fallacious conclusion. What Carlson said is this:

“Our CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, has said the same thing. If you’re vaccinated, Rochelle Walensky has assured us, you’re safe. You’re not just protected from infection – you're protected from serious illness or hospitalization, and even the lurking menace known as the Delta variant.”

There, Carlson didn't refute Walensky’s claim that the vaccines are protective – which they obviously are. Instead, he said that public health authorities are falsely telling us that, if you’re vaccinated, “you’re safe.” All or nothing.

So, if a few people get sick after being vaccinated, does that prove that the vaccines don’t work? Of course not. It does, however, let Carlson introduce a seed of doubt.

Now, I will agree that the public health authorities, who seek for us to avoid illness, sometimes overstate their case a little bit. Wise managers know that it’s smart to under-promise and over-deliver. I certainly understand that public health authorities want to encourage us to get vaccinated and to keep ourselves safe. At the same time, no public health authority can phrase a point so carefully that someone as unscrupulous as Tucker Carlson can’t twist and squirm. 

Conspiracy theories work with fallacies by their nature. A fallacy is, by definition, a flawed argument that can be made to seem reasonable. We hear that a few people got sick after taking the vaccine, and assume that the vaccine is useless. That is a fallacy because the majority of people who take the vaccine are highly protected and safe. In our current atmosphere of political mistrust, illogical arguments find fertile ground in the minds of people who are suspicious and uninformed. Knowing this, Tucker Carlson took full advantage to spread his bizarre conspiracy theory.

I think all of us like to think in absolutes. If I never run a red light, I think I will never be hit at an intersection. If I never drink alcohol, I think I’ll never get liver disease. Unfortunately, the real world gives us few absolutes. The real world faces us with gray areas, probabilities, and risk factors. When we start to think in all-or-nothing terms, we oversimplify our problems and make bad decisions. 

• Donald Trump Committed Straw Man Fallacies

• Tucker Carlson Got Tricky with His Evidence About Climate Change

Research Note: The best source about fallacies is still Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. 

In a Press Briefing, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Seeks Common Ground in the Fight against the Coronavirus

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke to the press once again, at a press conference in Geneva on August 31, 2020. Making a more direct statement than a few days ago, Ghebreyesus talked about the conflict between people who think that it is more important to contain the novel coronavirus and those who instead wish to open up their nation’s economy. Ghebreyesus’ simple thesis was that we need to do both. In a remarkably persuasive presentation, he expressed sympathy for people who want to open up the economy, saying that he shared their goals, but he explained that economies can only recover if the pandemic is controlled. Like all first-rate persuasive speakers, he sought common ground with his critics.

Earlier Post: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ Positive Approach to Fighting the Coronavirus

First, he expressed sympathy for the people who criticize public health measures. “Eight months into the pandemic,” he explained, “we understand that people are tired and yearn to get on with their lives. We understand that countries want to get their societies and economies going again.” He assured the press that “that’s what WHO wants too.” He acknowledged that restrictions “have taken a heavy toll on livelihoods, economies and mental health.” He supported “efforts to re-open economies and societies” and “to see children returning to school and people returning to the workplace.”

Of course, there’s always a catch: Ghebreyesus warned that “we want to see it done safely.” He warned that “no country can just pretend the pandemic is over.”

Obviously aware that many people, including in the United States, have downplayed the novel coronavirus’ severity, he pointed out that “The reality is that this coronavirus spreads easily, it can be fatal to people of all ages, and most people remain susceptible.”

Then came his punch line, where he gave a solution that combined the economic and public health goals: “The more control countries have over the virus, the more they can open up.”


“The more control countries have over the virus, the more they can open up.”

Second, Ghebreyesus offered a four-part solution:

(a) He said that nations must “prevent amplifying events.” He explained that the coronavirus “spreads very efficiently among clusters of people.” He noted the terrible outbreaks that occurred when people gathered at sporting events, bars, and religious assemblies. Such events, he warned, might need to be temporarily delayed.

(b) He also warned that especially vulnerable people such as the elderly, people with pre-existing risk factors, and “essential workers” need special protection.

(c) Third, he advised that every individual person must help, by staying a few feet apart from one another, washing hands, wearing a mask, and practicing “respiratory etiquette.” I have never heard such a nice way to ask people not to cough into one another’s faces.

(d) Finally, he discussed the importance of government action “to find, isolate, test and care for cases, and trace and quarantine contacts.”

In the United States, conservatives often protest against wholesale closings. Since we hear so much opposition to basic public health measures, Ghebreyesus wisely remarked that nations can avoid wholesale closings “if countries take temporary and geographically-targeted interventions.”

Ghebreyesus then cited Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, who had said that worldwide cooperation was the only way to overcome the international pandemic.

During times of stress, like a pandemic, people often want to hide from the rest of the world. In contrast, Director-General of the World Health Organization emphasized how important it is for all of us to cooperate to achieve goals. Those goals, he wanted us to see, are often perceived to be incompatible when they are, in fact, the same.

I could never have asked for one of my public speaking students to give a better-organized persuasive speech. Ghebreyesus identified and sympathized with the WHO’s critics, stated the problem concisely and sharply, and then offered solutions that would achieve everyone’s goals.

Ghebreyesus’ speech, like the briefing he gave a few days ago, was persuasive, thoughtful, and conciliatory. He gave well-informed opinions that deserve all our attention. Once again, however, the United States’ press gave him remarkably little publicity. Instead, we are hearing reports in which the President of the United States, of all people, discusses shadow people, soup bag-throwing, and mysterious black-suited people on airplanes. The press exalts in this nonsense even as it ignores valuable information like what the World Health Organizations provides.

It is time for the world to listen to people who know what they are talking about. I hope people listen Ghebreyesus’ speech. I hope we pay attention this time.



Theoretical note: a theory of communication called agenda-setting says that the press’ number one effect is not to tell us what to think, but what to think about. We in the United States are mostly thinking, favorably or unfavorably, about President Donald’s bizarre statements and odd behavior. Conservatives are also thinking about political vandalism presumably committed by left-wing extremists. That’s because these are the things that the press reports the most. But we are not thinking about basic public health measures, about which the press tells us little. Yet which is more important right now?

Image: CDC Facebook page

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

Kristin Urquiza gave a brief (about a minute, I think) but powerful speech tonight at the Democratic National Convention. She told the story of her father, Mark Anthony Urquiza, who died of the coronavirus in Arizona.

She explained that her father had trusted Donald Trump and voted for him. When Trump said that it was safe to end quarantine and go out, her father believed the President. Her father went to a karaoke bar with his friends in May as soon as the state's lockdown order ended. He got sick and a few weeks later was in the ICU breathing on a ventilator. He died in the hospital alone, “with a nurse holding his hand.”

“My dad,” she explained,  “was a healthy 65-year old. His only preexisting condition was trusting Donald Trump, and for that, he paid with his life.” The speaker’s point was not that Trump caused the coronavirus, but that he failed to deal with it responsibly and thus made the pandemic worse than it needed to be.

I’ll pass over the political side for the moment. Let’s talk about the public speaking techniques that gave this speech its power.

First, the speaker told a story. When we read about the coronavirus, we mostly run into statistics: the percentage of people who contracted, the percentage of positive versus negative coronavirus tests, the percentage of people who die after a positive test, the number of people who died yesterday, the relative dangers of different age groups, and so forth. Numbers are great. When people see numbers, they can calculate how bad something is and make decisions about it.

Numbers, however, don't hit people where it counts. We don’t really care about numbers. It is often said that people cannot visualize numbers higher than three, and that higher numbers are just abstractions to us. I don’t know whether that’s true or not. I do know, however, that stories give a message power, while numbers usually do not. 

Coronavirus, CDC

So, was Mark Anthony Urquiza a typical coronavirus patient? I don’t have enough information to know. What I do know is that I cared about his daughter’s story. Her calm but passionate delivery gave her story emotional impact. The entire convention is on line, but Kristen Urquiza adapted well to the remote format. 

Good public speakers tell stories. People care about stories. When a speaker’s abstract, scientific data doesn’t seem real, when clever speakers learn how to twist statistics to mean something other than what they really mean, the numbers just get bandied around and people don’t really care about them.

By the end of her story, however, we cared about Kristin Urquiza’s father: a loyal Trump supporter who trusted the president, as so many people do, only to discover too late that he was in trouble. I always told my students to tell stories in their speeches. Stories work. Good speakers use them.

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

Second, Kristin Urquiza’s speech was short. If you took a coffee break, you would have missed it. Speakers often like to have a lot of time in front of an audience so they can hear themselves talk. But why? Short speeches sometimes have the most impact. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was only about five minutes, and yet it is the only speech from the long day’s events that anyone remembers. Booker T. Washington’s “Cast Down Your Bucket Where You Are” was short but, again, it is the only speech from a long program that anyone remembers. If you want a long speech to be good, it’d better be really, really good. Sometimes a short speech with a simple point is the best. 

Rhetorical lesson learned? Tell a story, make your point, and sit down. 

Earlier Post: William Jennings Bryan's Famous 1896 Democratic Convention Speech