Donald Trump's Soda Bottle Speech Should Have Destroyed His Credibility, but It Did Not. Why Not?

Donald Trump Signs Vaccine Executive Order

A soda bottle? Did Donald Trump really say that babies receive vaccine injections the size of a soda bottle? Yes, he did.

On August 10, 2026, United States President Donald Trump, accompanied by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a noted conspiracy theorist, and various other more or less random people, announced a new vaccine policy by executive order. This is the Trump administration's latest salvo in its attempts to change vaccine recommendations, the courts and states have already resisted Trump's earlier anti-vaccine orders. 

Sitting at a desk, while the other speakers stood, droning hesitantly in a barely audible voice, Trump rambled about the alleged harm of vaccines. After complaining that American children get too many vaccines, even hesitantly saying that combined vaccines could be “quite lethal,” Trump offered a statement that should have, but apparently did not, destroy his credibility forever. Perking up and waving his arms, Trump said:

“You should have five separate visits for vaccines rather than getting them all in the same day and I saw this early on and I’ve seen proof of it, where they have a vaccination, it looks like the size of a bottle of soda poured into a little child’s body.”

The size of a soda bottle? Any parent who has watched their child’s vaccination knows that vaccines are administered from tiny little syringes. The MMR vaccine in the United States is available only in single dose, 0.5 ml disposable syringes. Coronavirus and influenza vaccines are often marketed in multi-use vials of 20 ml., which amounts to less than 1 fluid ounce per vial. Of course, nobody administers the entire multi-use vial to one baby!

So, Trump just made this up. The most frightening part is that he was reading from a prepared manuscript, which suggests that one or more speechwriters prepared and vetted this incoherent material before he presented it. The fact that Trump didn’t even flinch when he read this laughable passage (indeed, he perked up and spread his arms, illustrating the soda bottle’s immense size) makes me wonder whether he needs another cognitive processing test.

Sometimes, when we evaluate a speech, we should heed the one key sentence that tells us everything we need to know. Why should we care about the big picture when the detail in the corner carries the central message? Furthermore, why would the public ignore that entire message? It all comes down to how people evaluate or fail to evaluate a speaker's credibility.

Now, for the most part, the press sanewashed this entire episode. For example, CNBC took time to notice that Trump spoke “without evidence.” CNBC also cited experts who denied that the vaccine was lethal. Their calm journalistic approach gave the idea that there is a debate on some level, even as they acknowledged that Trump’s view raised controversy. Did they say anything about the soda bottle? No! Why not? We will get to that in a moment.

As far as I can see, only PolitiFact bothered to comment on Trump’s soda bottle claim, awarding it their sadly popular “Pants on Fire” rating.

Now, what was truly wrong with Trump’s claim? Is the press right, is the main problem the fact that many experts disagree? I think not. We learned years ago, did we not, that the people that support Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. hold experts in contempt. Why would they suddenly care?

These responses underestimated Trump's attack on reality. A man who thinks that children received injections the size of soda bottles is unworthy of belief on any medical subject. The real point is not that Trump and the experts clashed once again. His supporters consider that to be a plus. No, the real point is that he said something so bafflingly idiotic, so disconnected from reality, so bizarre, that even the silliest conspiracy theorist would struggle to defend it. The point is that someone who says, and apparently believes, something so foolish should have no credibility whatsoever. To wallow in point-by-point refutation of the other conspiracy theories that Trump’s speech covered merely wastes our time.

Why did the press ignore the soda bottle issue? For the question on my mind is not whether Trump does or does not agree with experts. We have known for years that he rarely does. Nor is it the point that he drifted off to sleep during his own panel session. He has done that before; no one cares. Nor is it the point that Kennedy, a recovering drug addict, trembled like an autumn leaf during his share of the event. No one cares about that. No, the point is that Trump said something that was bafflingly daffy, said it with total seriousness, and blithely moved on to the rest of his anti-vaccine argument. A soda bottle? Really? Have we become so accustomed to Donald Trump’s incoherence, ignorance, and foolishness, that there still remains a need to – sanewash – his presidency, as part of some massive, nationwide effort to pretend that the United States still has a functioning president?

A psychological concept called the incredulity effect helps us to understand that. This effect occurs when sources, such as respected speakers, say something that is so astonishing that the audience literally does not believe they said it. In other words, even if they are faced with a direct quotation, news report, or video clip, we cannot expect Trump’s supporters, who endow him with credibility far beyond what he deserves, to admit that he said something that was so completely absurd. Worse, if they admit that he did say it, they could tell themselves he was just joking, speaking hyperbolically, playing five-dimensional chess, or “owning the libs.” Alternatively, as in this case, pretty much everybody just ignores Trump’s departure from reality. Maybe the nation is collectively unwilling to admit that our nation voluntarily gave the nation’s governance, the leadership of the free world, and authority over the nuclear codes, to a person whose brain no longer functions as it should.

"It's All about Control:" Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

 

Oops, Trump Asked His Voters to Take a Vaccine

 
Sadly, not one of those excuses makes sense. First, Trump did say it and there is a video. Second, he was reading from a prepared manuscript that someone, one hopes, must have vetted. Third, Trump neither flinched nor smirked when he spoke. No, he was serious. Unfortunately, it seems that neither the press nor Trump’s millions of loyal acolytes will accept the obvious.

Nevertheless, their obliviousness changes nothing. The only part of Trump’s entire presentation, indeed, the only part of the entire lengthy panel discussion, that we should care about was that one searing burst of irrationality: a dose of vaccines “the size of a bottle of soda.” That was the one part of the speech that actually woke Trump up, leading him to gesticulate emphatically. That one sadly underreported phrase should have been enough to convince the entire nation that no one should take Donald Trump seriously. Trump’s incisive destruction of his own credibility should render the rest of his presentation moot.

Anyone who follows the news knows that Trump is not the only American leader who has passed his prime. Luckily, however, those people do not control a fearsome military machine. Never an intellectual marvel, Trump has deteriorated past the point at which he can address even the most basic national problems. The Republican majority in Congress supinely ratifies every foolish decision that Trump makes. All too often, even the Supreme Court bows at his irrational commands. But is that what is best for the country?

Will the public notice, or not? After all, in the long run, credibility is an audience response, and Trump's audience, which is the entire nation, seems to be floundering in his wake. In the moment that he rattled on about the soda bottle, Trump presented irrefutable evidence that he deserve no credibility from anyone, at any time, even as his increasingly daft presidency waddles along.

by William D. Harpine

Linguistic Note: The charming neologism “sanewashing” often crops up among anti-Trump bloggers; I think that Jennifer Rubin coined the term, but who knows?

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Image: White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's Election Fraud Speech and the Illusion of Proof, Part Two

Donald Trump

In his July 16, 2026 speech about election security, United States President Donald Trump made several startling claims about the nation’s elections. Furthermore, he simultaneously released documents in an attempt to prove them. Among his claims, he asserted that noncitizens are illegally voting: 

“According to the DHS review, state voter rolls and public records, they identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections.” 

As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, Trump’s speech created the illusion that he was proving things that he did not, in fact, prove. Instead of stating the proof during his actual speech, Trump referred listeners to the White House website. Note to readers: when a speaker promises to prove something, but instead refers the audience to an outside source for proof, you need to get suspicious right away. That tactic raises a giant red flag. 

Trump's Election Fraud Speech and the Illusion of Proof, Part One

Anyway, I accordingly browsed the White House website. I found a note, which did not prove election fraud as promised. Instead, it said that the White House was “addressing key areas of election integrity.” Basic government-speak. Typical Deep State hedging. I then looked at the link that said, “Noncitizens on State Voter Rolls.”  Curiously, only one page in that link (and by page, I mean, literally, one printed page) dealt with noncitizens on state voter rolls (the only other page on that link was on a different topic, pointing out that the Chinese government has been accessing American voter rolls, which is apparently legal, albeit extremely disturbing). Here it is. 

White House Document; Click to Enlarge

Thus, now that we have browsed through several confusing links, we finally find Trump’s supposed evidence that 

“OVER 250,000 NON-CITIZENS ARE ILLEGALLY REGISTERED TO VOTE IN JUST THE FOUR STATES FOR WHICH PUBLIC DATA FILES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED.” [italics added]

This page then petulantly lists 10 states (far short of 50 but more than 4, which makes me curious about the White House’s editing team) that have been “proactive” to scan their voter rolls for alien voters. Worse, even if we count all 10 states from the White House chart, the number of non-citizens registered to vote only adds up to 10,716. If that turns out to be true, it is 10,716 too many, but it is nowhere near 250,000, as the headline claims. Now, I am no math genius, but evidently I can out-count the White House’s wizards. 

The document conspiratorially concludes by claiming:  

“There is an undeniable pattern emerging as DHS begins to unravel the horrific damage done by the open border policies of the Biden administration. States that have adopted alien-first policies instead of American-first policies have a disproportionate number of non-citizens on their voter rolls.”  

Okay, as the old hamburger advertisement asked, “where’s the beef?”  

First, where is the valid evidence proving that these thousands of noncitizens are (1) registered to vote as noncitizens and (2) actually voting? A chart, by itself, proves nothing. Since I have been trained in social science research methods, I immediately want to know the methodology by which the chart was created. Unfortunately, that methodology is not given. This matters, for legal actions have claimed that the supposed lists of noncitizen voters include legal immigrants who obtained a driver’s license while non-citizens, but subsequently became naturalized and are therefore now legally allowed to vote. In one such lawsuit, the State of Texas backed down on its claim! Analyzing Texas’ actions, David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation & Research commented that, “Their claims would likely be dismissed [in court] until they could come up with something that actually documents how they got to those numbers.” 

Since the one-page document – the only evidence that Trump presented on this point – fails to address this well-publicized criticism, what, if anything, has been established?  

Second, if there are, indeed, thousands of noncitizens illegally registered to vote, why have these supposedly patriotic, data-driven states not prosecuted them – by the thousands? The evidence does not support Trump’s claim. That is not just a logical gap; it is a logical cavern. 

Trump made a simple, but vital, claim about election security. He presented no evidence in his speech, instead referring listeners to his website. The website provides only pathetic documentation. This reduces his claim to mere political posturing. It was easy for him to make false claims, but making such a claim in a speech does not prove it to be true. The speaker either offers proof or does not offer proof. In this case, Trump did not present the promised proof. Making a wild accusation proves nothing! 

Smoke, mirrors, and misdirection! A magician’s classic tricks. Trump’s speech directed me to a website. I plowed through the website, link after confusing link, only to find that any proof is doubtful. It is easy to make accusations. It is much harder to discover and present proof. It was easy for Trump to make these accusations. I, however, needed to do a lot of work to discover that he had not proven anything. Throwing out a puff of smoke in front of a mirror? That’s easy. Digging into the facts? That requires effort. That, in fact, underlies Trump’s real trick. 

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

Social science explains why Trump’s trick works. RAND Corporation researchers introduced the concept of the “Firehose of Falsehood.” The idea is that dishonest speakers, like Donald Trump, can spew out vast numbers of false charges. A firehose of false charges. One false charge after another. Their gullible audience doesn’t expect them to prove anything. However, to disprove even one charge is a lot of work. Look at how much effort I needed to create this blog post just to disprove one questionable claim. It’s easy for a speaker to spew out an unsupported accusation, but hard for a careful listener to prove that it’s false. Critical listeners eventually get overwhelmed. Trump’s speech made many claims. He proved none of them. I suspect that most of them are false. Do I, however, want to spend the next week or two parsing the speech, point by point, to prove that every single claim was false? No, of course not. I have other things to do with my life. 

One flaw in Trump’s documentation is absolutely fascinating: although the United States government is stuffed with skilled web designers, Trump’s team made his election documents hard to access and even harder to link. Why? Well, maybe Trump just hired the worst web designers in the government. I wouldn’t doubt that. Or, maybe, he and his team just schemed to make the documents hard to access. I lean toward the former, because of the old slogan that we should never accuse somebody of dishonesty when incompetence explains things perfectly well. Still, who knows? 

I hope, in a future post, to explain the ancient concept of Burden of Proof. Ultimately, Trump’s genius as a rhetorician, and his failure as a leader, is that he asserts things that he cannot prove. His loyal supporters’ biggest weakness may be their gullible eagerness to accept Trump’s dubious, unproven claims. Next time around, when Trump makes outrageous claims, our simple response needs to be: “you made the claim, now you need to prove it!” 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Donald Trump: official portrait, public domain

Image of Homeland Security Document, White House website, public domain

Trump's Election Fraud Speech and the Illusion of Proof, Part One

Magician Pretending to Saw a Woman in Half

As a child, I used to watch magicians on the Ed Sullivan Show put a pretty young woman into a box, saw the box in half, and then reassemble the woman, quite unharmed. As an adult, I know perfectly well that nothing happened to the woman. The magician just created an illusion. He made me think that I was seeing something that I was not seeing at all.

President Donald Trump is good at that kind of thing. In his White House speech of July 16, 2026, Donald Trump created the illusion that he was proving something, but it was mostly smoke and mirrors. A magicians’ trick. Now, Trump did not promise to saw a woman in half and put her back together. He did, however, promise this:

“Tonight, I'm announcing the immediate declassification and release of critical intelligence, revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure.”

Trump promised to expose “vulnerabilities” in our election system. However, did he prove his point? I contend that he did not, for he failed to live up to his own standards. A reasoned argument has three essential parts: (1) the evidence, (2) the conclusion, and (3) a link that connects the evidence to the conclusion.

Trump then emphasized that he was going to present wonderful evidence, a “declassification and release of critical intelligence,” evidence that the powers that be, the mysterious Deep State, had covered up for years:

“This vital information has for many years been covered up and hidden from you, the American people — our beautiful, our great American people.”

Sadly, Trump’s argument failed because the evidence that the White House subsequently published on its official website continued to cover up much of the information that the American people might want to see. He gave the illusion that he had proved something, but the evidence he cited did not prove his conclusions.

Here is Trump’s claim, and here is his reference:

“You can see these documents for yourself at whitehouse.gov, that's whitehouse.gov, go check it out. Our purpose in disclosing this information is not to weaken confidence in elections, but to earn that confidence by confronting vulnerabilities and correcting them very, very quickly, and that's what we're doing.” [italics added]

Trump never described this information in any detail during his actual speech. That always makes me suspicious. Instead, he told us to look at a website. So, I looked at WhiteHouse.gov, where I quickly found that a number of the cited documents did not open on my computer. Hmm. What about the ones that did open? Well, it just seems to me that if the speaker’s idea is “disclosing” information, that well, information should be disclosed. Alas! When I opened one of the White House links to information about alleged problems with our election systems, I uncovered this glorious page: 

And this one!

I went over quite a few of the documents, finding that many of them were heavily redacted, and that the ones that were not redacted were, for the most part, uninformative procedural comments. I am no expert in foreign intelligence or election systems, but it does not seem to me that these pages disclosed useful information. Nor do I feel that I now, as Trump had promised, “can see these documents” in any useful way. What do you think?

The reader is surely thinking, maybe there is secret information in those documents that needs to stay private. I don’t doubt that for a moment. Still, Trump said that his purpose was to disclose secret information for the public to examine, information that had been hidden by the Deep State, and yet that information was not disclosed. I see no way to think that Trump kept his promise.

  

To me, as a somewhat critical listener, it seems obvious that anyone who looks at these blanked out pages is going to say, well, these are just blanked out pages. Blanked out pages don’t show anything, do they? So what purpose do they accomplish?

Those questions are easy to answer. Trump’s bizarre semi-disclosure proved little but accomplished plenty. After all, neither Trump nor his team showed even the slightest interest in proving anything that a careful listener or reader would care about. No! They presented what communication professionals call “the illusion of proof.” Trump claimed that our elections are in danger. He seemed to present enormous amounts of evidence, not in his speech, but on a website. That evidence, if we trouble ourselves to navigate to the website and look at it, which some people will and some people will not, proved little, but an uncritical listener could – and probably will – imagine that Trump had now proved something important, that Democrats should be ashamed of themselves, and that Trump had now established that the Democrats and the Chinese and who knows who else have cheated in our elections. After all, Trump made an important claim, and then gave evidence, and, if one doesn’t look into too much detail, one might think that Trump had established his claim. One might even think that he had disclosed something useful to know.

Donald Trump Created the "Illusion of Proof" in His April 13, 2020 Coronavirus Task Force Press Conference

In a Rose Garden Speech, Trump Pretended to Have a Healthcare Plan

Yet, even a casual glance shows that Trump failed to prove his claim. Unfortunately, he failed to live up to his own standard, which was to disclose secret documents. Instead, we got smoke and mirrors. An illusion worthy of a great magician. But proof? No. Magicians do not saw young women in half and put them back together. That is only an illusion. Neither did Trump prove that anything big was wrong with our elections. He only created an illusion. 

by William D. Harpine

________________   

N.B.: Note that mainstream news media have, with great care, gone over all of the released documents so far, and generally concluded that Trump, at best, overstated his case. They are obviously right. What I add is that Trump created an illusion, a pretense, a dramatic and convincing demonstration that he had proved something, while proving little.

Research Note: The concept of the “illusion of proof” comes from a landmark article by an important communication professor, the late Barnet Baskerville, "The Illusion of Proof," Western Speech, 25 (1961): 236-242. The journal is now called Western Journal of Communication. Although this invaluable article is not readily available online, a large research library should be able to find you a copy. 

To understand the structure of reasoned arguments, there is still no better source than Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument. 

Note: Here is the follow-up post, Part Two

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Images of redacted pages are public domain, from WhiteHouse.gov

Image of magician is public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's April 1 Iran War Speech: Did He Rise to the Occasion?

"We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong." 

On April 1, 2026 (April Fools’ Day, as informally celebrated in the USA!), President Donald J Trump delivered that terrible threat during a White House speech about the month-old war against Iran. Sadly, he neglected to rise to the situation, in that he failed either to state clear war goals or overcome contradictions caused by his previous speeches, which claimed that he had previously "obliterated” Iran’s nuclear weapons. 

Donald Trump, White House photo

Thus, Trump failed to meet the situation’s demands. In 1968, communication professor Lloyd Bitzer, in a landmark article on “The Rhetorical Situation,” showed that certain situations cry out for a speech. For example, the Gettysburg cemetery dedication called for a speech, and Abraham Lincoln responded brilliantly. Lincoln stated a powerful goal: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?

Likewise, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor called for a speech, and President Franklin Roosevelt likewise responded with greatness: “a day which will live in infamy.” 

Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time

Bitzer explained that any rhetorical situation has three parts: an exigence, which is “an imperfection marked by urgency.” The second part is the audience, and the third consists of the “constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience.” As an example of a constraint, Roosevelt promised, “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion,” for all wars require great resolve.

Like Pearl Harbor, the Iran war called out for a speech: the public (the audience) needed to hear the President state the war’s goals, reassure the world, and inspire the nation for the oncoming struggle. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, Trump said little to reassure or inspire his audience. His speech failed because he did not overcome the constraints that he himself had created. 

The First Constraint

The first constraint that Trump had imposed on himself involved his main rationale for the war: the need to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons:

“For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat.”

As it happens, however, Trump had previously stated – vociferously emphasized! – that the United States’ June 2025 bombing raids had already “obliterated” (his word) Iran’s nuclear program. Since this presumed war goal had, he had said, already been achieved, why did he start the current war? 

Donald Trump, the Iran War, and the Art of Doublespeak

Indeed, since Trump had previously boasted that Iran’s nuclear weapons had already been obliterated, he needed to tack on more justifications. Thus, he complained about Iran’s “vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles,” noted that Iran had killed many of its internal political opponents, complained about the long-ago bombing of the USS Cole, and grumbled dubiously that “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal” was a “disaster.”

In other words (granting, as I do, that Iran’s government is evil), Trump followed the rhetorical strategy of throwing handfuls of half-cooked spaghetti against the wall, hoping to see a few strands stick. Trump's justification for the war nevertheless remained slim, for he had already trapped himself in a contradictory position. You cannot, after all, destroy something that you had already “obliterated.”

The Second Constraint

This led to the second constraint that Trump failed to overcome, which was the need to state a war goal. Again, he was constrained by his previous claims that he had already crushed Iran's ambitions. To state goals was part of Trump's rhetorical situation, that is to say, part of the exigence. The American public – Trump’s audience – needed to know why we were fighting and what we hoped to accomplish. Now, a goal is an outcome by definition. However, instead of stating an outcome, Trump only stated a method - the method of violent destruction:

"They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force.... If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we’ll hit them with missiles very hard again. We have all the cards. They have none."

So, yes, Trump announced that the United States was bombing Iran. He did not, however, clarify the political outcome that he expected the bombing to produce.

Yes, Trump complained about the cruelty of Iran’s government. Oh? Did that mean that regime change  was his goal, then? Fascinatingly, Trump slithered about regime change:

“Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead.” [Italics added]

Startlingly, Trump even said that his unstated war goals had already been achieved:

“We’ve beaten and completely decimated Iran. They are decimated both militarily and economically and in every other way.”

Yet, paradoxically, Trump forcefully insisted that he would continue the war until his objectives, whatever they were, had been met:

“I made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our objectives are fully achieved. Thanks to the progress we’ve made. I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly. Very shortly.”

Regrettably, Iran’s government never got the message that their military forces had been devastated, for, subsequently to Trump’s speech, they shot down two American aircraft, presumably using their nonexistent antiaircraft weapons. As I write, Iran continues to obstruct the crucial Strait of Hormuz. Just today, a few days after the speech, Iranian missiles destroyed some of our allies’ data centers. The sad fact remains that, in any war, the enemy always gets a vote.


Why Trump’s Speech Failed

Whenever they are called to war, the people of the United States want to know why they are fighting and what goals the government expects to accomplish. We live in a constitutional, representative republic, not a dictatorship, which means that only massive public commitment can lead to any war’s success. Trump’s speech failed to rise to the rhetorical situation, for he said too little, too late. He failed to articulate clear goals. Instead of rousing the nation to fight, as Lincoln did at Gettysburg and Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor, Trump played make-believe by pretending that victory was already at hand.

War is always a great horror, and suffering is never to be embraced. All the same, bombs themselves do not win wars. War requires commitment. Americans will fight, and fight hard, if they perceive a worthy cause. Now, as Bitzer explained, every public speaker must confront and overcome constraints. Nevertheless, Trump’s weak, ambivalent speech failed to meet the rhetorical situation, leaving the nation in moral limbo. He failed to clarify the war’s goals, and, instead of overcoming the constraints against his speech’s success, he let the constraints trap him in contradictions. Wartime presidents always need to rise to the situation. Create passion, or invite defeat. 

by William D. Harpine

___________ 

Note about Presentation: One cannot overlook the week, hesitant, and monotonic delivery that Trump brought to this April 1 speech. That vacillating approach was not calculated to inspire anyone. His presentation seemed to lack his usual energetic, forceful, and sardonic persona. 

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Donald Trump and the Art of Doublespeak

Donald Trump

When Donald Trump gave his Truth Social speech in the wee hours of February 28, 2026, “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program did not mean that he had obliterated anything. Why did Trump play a word game? He needed to squirm out of the trap that he had created with his own rhetorical history. That is, Trump had earlier boasted that a June 2025 attack had obliterated Iran’s nuclear program. That was false. The raid damaged the program but did not obliterate it. 

The problem is that “obliterate” is an absolute word. So, we could damage something but not obliterate it. There can be degrees of damage, but there is only one level of obliteration. According to the dictionary, to obliterate something means “to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely.” That is quite absolute!

When something has been obliterated, it simply no longer exists. Unfortunately, since Trump had previously claimed to have obliterated Iran’s nuclear weapons program, he needed to play a word game to justify obliterating it again. Never one to admit error, Trump played a game of doublespeak to justify his February 2026 attack.

Yes, yesterday, February 28, 2026, United States President Donald Trump gave a brief speech – on Truth Social, of all places – announcing an air and missile strike against Iran. After reviewing various Iranian bad actions, most of which dated back decades, Trump’s Truth Social speech emphasized that he wanted to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, indeed, the same nuclear program that he said he had obliterated in June 2025. He said:

“It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again, they can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Continuing, Trump boasted that the United States military had, at his direction, previously “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program:

“That is why in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.” [italics added]

Trump then accused Iran of trying to “rebuild their nuclear program.” He promised that Iran’s missile program “will be again totally obliterated.” [italics added]

Again? After only a few months?

Obliterated once, obliterated again: Trump’s speech began to sound like a science fiction story in which the dead space alien comes back to life again, again, and again.

Sadly, however, Trump’s previous statements trapped him. We must remember the history of Trump’s obliterations. That is, back in June 2025, he had posted on the White House website that:

“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear [sic] sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded [sic] into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!” [italics added]

Obliteration!

At the same time, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had said:

“Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. [italics added]

That, as it happens, turned out to be wrong. United States intelligence services quickly found that the June 2025 attack left Iran's major nuclear equipment undamaged.

It defies credulity to think that we would need to obliterate a program that had already been obliterated, and, indeed, obliterated so recently. Disinclined to admit that Trump could be mistaken, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded, still in June 2025, that the intelligence report was wrong, and that Iran’s nuclear program had, in fact, been obliterated: 

“The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.” [italics added]

Although Leavitt tried to defend Trump’s gross overstatement of the facts about the June 2025 raid, she also unwittingly foreshadowed the rhetorical history that Trump would need to overcome in February 2026.

Trump Prayer Breakfast Speech: Fighting for God?

That is why Trump’s word game – obliteration then and obliteration now – only worked, to the extent that it worked at all, if Trump used the exact word every time. If he said in June that the program had been obliterated, and then said yesterday that the program had merely been destroyed in June, the entire word game would fall apart. Trump could not say, “We obliterated Iran’s nuclear program in June, and now we have destroyed it.” He could not say, “We obliterated Iran’s nuclear program in June, and now we have smashed it.” Obliteration does not permit degrees. Logic gave Trump no escape, but the word game helped Trump avoid conceding that he had been wrong the first time. 

Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time

In his novel 1984, George Orwell defined doublethink as the political practice of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Writers have evolved the related term “doublespeak” to reflect a similar idea, in which we use one word to mean contradictory things. In Trump’s case, does “obliterate” really mean “obliterate”?

Trump’s linguistic trick is obvious: brazen, maybe. Unfortunately, its powerful persuasive force cannot be denied. Trapped in a history created by his own previous exaggerations, unwilling to retreat, unable to admit error, Trump implicitly asked his audience to revise the entire concept of obliteration. Doublespeak indeed. 

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S.: Now, I am just a retired speech teacher, and I’m not qualified to say how much damage these raids did to Iran’s warlike ambitions, nor am I qualified to say whether Trump’s policy is wise or unwise (although I have my doubts!). One must suspect, however, that Trump would not play word games if he and the facts played for the same team.

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

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

Trump Prayer Breakfast Speech: Fighting for God?

Donald Trump, White House photo

Does Donald Trump use faith for the awesome power of doing good, or does he use the awesome force of government to crush all opposition?

“I'm never going to make it to heaven. I just don't think I qualify. I don't think there's a thing I can do.”

So confessed President Donald Trump at the February 5 National Prayer Breakfast. Trump’s thesis was that he, himself, was on a wrong moral path, but he had spread religion across the land. As he spoke about religion, Trump expressed values of power, not wisdom. He boasted that he used his power to spread a religious movement. The Christian Right had long supported Trump, and Trump boasted that he supported their movement! So, what are our values? Like most speeches, this one reflected Trump’s values.

Mike Pence Heckled by the Christian Right Because He Didn't Bow to Trump

Indeed, Trump’s lengthy speech said little about prayer, but much about political triumph. Trump reflected the Christian Right’s view that Christian evangelism needs the power of government. As he did so, Trump revealed the disconnect between the Christian Right’s politics and such Christian values as caring for the poor and protecting vulnerable people. Do we use government policy to advance Christian ideals, such as caring for the downtrodden, or do we instead seek to use government to impose a particular interpretation of religion?

Indeed, former TV star that he is, Trump boasted that he had made religion “hotter:”

“But all of these good things I'm doing, including for religion. You know, religion is back now hotter than ever before. I mean, I have to tell you. But I said even though I did that and so many other things, I named things, I said I won't qualify, I'm not going to make it to heaven. We call him Rand Paul Jr. You know, it's like they just vote no. They love voting no. They think it's good politically. The guy's polling at about nine percent. It's not good, but we have great support and we have great support for religion. You know, I've done more for religion than any other president. When Paula [Rev. Paula White] was saying that, it was so nice.” [italics added]

Did that comment say a thing about prayer? About being religious? No! Trump said he was doing “good things . . . for religion.” He said “great support for religion.” He did not say, “the good things that religion asks us to do.” Trump was only talking about power—the power to spread religion – and conflict – his conflict with Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies in 2019

Continuing, Trump absorbed Rev. White’s praise and boasted again that he used his power to spread religion:

“I was proud of it and I said that’s true. I told the people backstage, what she [Rev. White] said is true. Who else would say that, right? But it is true. But then I said, but that’s not saying much because not too many presidents have done too much for religion. I want to tell you that, certainly modern day. Certainly modern day presidents, they didn’t. They bailed out on you.” [italics added]

It is telling that, despite the First Amendment’s provision against an established religion, Trump literally complained that other presidents, including overtly religious presidents like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, had done little to advance religion. However, was that their job? Does being a religious president mean that you do religious things, or that your government spreads religion?

Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us What We Should Have Known All Along: There Are Two Different Christianities

The Christian Right has, of course, long supported Trump. Paula White had, in fact, been one of many conservative Christian pastors who promoted Trump's candidacy. They overlook his moral failings—failings that he admitted during this speech—to obtain their religious goals. At times, all too often, they seem to worship him like a prophet.

The Golden Trump Statue at CPAC 2021: Why Is the Christian Right Silent?

Rev. Robert Jeffress Prayed a Pro-Trump Political Speech

Franklin Graham Prayed for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents

Still, if our national policy becomes to oppress immigrants and the poor, what good has the Christian faith done for us? The Christian Right has indeed gained great power, but to what end? Are they following the teachings of Jesus? Did Jesus say to deport immigrants, make life harder for the poor, to be cruel and hateful? 

With stark clarity, Trump revealed American Christianity’s basic choice: do we trust God enough to follow his laws in public life, or do we seek to rule by power? Speeches do, indeed, reflect our values.

by William D. Harpine

Note:

A recent Pew survey found that White Evangelical Christians still support Trump more than do other groups, but less so than they did a year ago.

Trump made little mention of the Christian religion per se, as opposed to religion in general, but I think most people figured out what he meant. 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

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

Will History Repeat Itself? Trump and the Art of Making Horrible Threats

January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot

When world leaders make threats, they usually mean them. The public must heed. Leaders make threats to guide their devoted followers. Donald Trump does this often. Hitler did it before him. Threats polarize the public, which divides itself into strong supporters and meek opponents. Now, since the polarizing leader cares little about the meek opponents, it is the strong supporters who make a difference. We often fear secret conspiracies, but it is the public announcements that should terrify us.

For example, debating against his successor, Joe Biden, in September 2020, Donald Trump specifically alerted a right-wing terrorist group to prepare in case he lost the election:

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what: somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem this is a left-wing.” [sic]  

Threats Prepare for Action

“Stand back and stand by” was a threat that laid the groundwork for action. Leaders, even the cruelest, stupidest, most authoritarian leaders, need support. They need followers who they can mobilize into action. They need soldiers to carry the rifles. They need pilots to drop the bombs. They need angry mobs to crush the opposition. That is why they state their mission coldly, plainly, and bluntly.

Of course, on January 6, 2021 thousands of Capitol rioters followed Trump’s commands. Trump had alerted and guided his supporters. Trump’s comment to the Proud Boys was not an idle threat. It was part of his method. 

 We should never have dismissed his threat. Leaders must instruct their public. Indeed, in December 2020, after losing the election, Trump announced the January 6 riot in advance:

“Big protests in D.C. on January 6. Be there. Will be wild!”

Indeed, as prosecutor Jack Smith recently said about the January 6 riot, this “does not happen” without Trump.

Sadly, the public seemed neither to believe nor care that Trump had threatened to revolt against the election. When January 6 arrived, Congress went blithely along, solemnly counting the electoral votes, oblivious while an angry mob collected outside. Indeed, even today, years later, many people continue to deny the obvious.

Indeed, it was not just the Proud Boys who were ready to “stand back and stand by.” As I write this, a Republican-controlled Congressional subcommittee is holding hearings to rewrite the narrative of January 6. In those hearings, Trump-supporting Congressman Troy Nehls of Texas questioned reports that Capitol Police officers were injured that day. He said it was “Trump haters” who spread such claims. Last week a CBS/YouGov poll found that: “The percentage of Republicans who strongly disapprove of the Jan. 6 attack has dropped more than 20 points since January 2021 — from 51% then to 30% now.” Trump led; his voters followed.  

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

Trump's Second January 6 Speech Accidentally Spiked MAGA Conspiracy Theories


Does Trump Use Hitler’s Methods?

As I noted in my previous post, Hitler openly threatened the Holocaust in a major speech. 

Hitler Pretended to Be a Prophet, but He Was Really an Evil Führer

Hitler’s supporters trusted him. Did they really expect him to start a devastating war?  Did they really expect him to lead Germany truants? Probably not. But they should have believed his threats. Hitler was, months before the war, telling his supporters that massacres were coming. So, when Hitler told a cheering Reichstag in 1937, two years before the war in Europe, that he intended to abolish individual rights, he meant what he said:

“In the new German legal system which will be in force from now onwards the nation is placed above persons and property.”

Hitler was not just saying awful things, for he was also briefing and guiding his supporters. Totalitarians cannot, after all, work in secret!

Trump Continues to Make Threats

Greenland Town

Trump uses similar methods to propose annexing Greenland. Trump recently told a group of reporters:

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt chimed in:

“Utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option.”

Once again, despite a little public agitation, Trump’s meek opponents fail to take him seriously. A war over Greenland? It seems so incredible! Surely Trump is joking! Maybe Trump is just negotiating by extortion! Maybe he is just ranting!

Even podcaster Jesse Kelly, one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, denied that Trump meant what he said:

“People freaking out about Trump threatening military action for Greenland are all either dumb or lying. This is how he negotiates everything. And he’s been doing so publicly for a [sic] like 50 years now. Carrot and stick. He’s gonna buy it. He was always gonna buy it.”

How naïve! No, a thousand times no. Donald Trump, like all world leaders, leads by communicating. There is no other way to lead! He gives speeches. He makes statements. Those speeches and statements guide his supporters and organize their actions. The fact that he is a leader means that he is not working alone. He is leading other people. Now, Trump might change his mind, or his worried donors might stop him, but no one should ignore him. 

Worse, is our constitutional republic dying? Trump commented, just today, that:

“When you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.” 

Was he facetious, as his spokesperson later claimed? Was this a joke, or a threat?

Totalitarian Rulers Lead by Threats

Polarization in Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech 

Trump does not need a majority. No polarizing leader needs a majority. All he needs is to motivate a core group of fanatical supporters. That is what polarization means. So, should we take Trump seriously when he threatens to war against our friends and neighbors? Honestly, we are fools if we do not. Should we take pleasure if his poll numbers drop? Maybe not. Once leaders start to polarize us, what difference do opinion polls make?

Prophecies? Threats? Bloviating? Instructions? Or warnings?  

by William D. Harpine

_______________

Research Note: One finds surprisingly few research studies of Hitler's speaking. I'll mention two of the best. First, Haig A. Bosmajian's 1960 article "The Nazi Speaker's Rhetoric," is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, although a good library might be able to find a copy. 

Also, Randall L. Bytwerk's book Bending Spines: The Propagandas of Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic delves into the terrifying rhetorical pathology that made Hitler possible. I defy anyone to read this book and not see connections with Trump's rhetorical style.

There is no better source about polarization than the masterful study, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, by John W. Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, and David P. Schulz.

On Trump's persuasive methods, Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump by Jennifer Mercieca is worth a careful look.

Copyright 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of January 6 Capitol riot, by TapTheForwardAssist, 

Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Greenland town: Buiobuione, 

Creative Commons license, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's Second January 6 Speech Accidentally Spiked MAGA Conspiracy Theories

The US Capitol on January 6th

“I know how you feel,” said President Donald J. Trump to the defeated crowd of rioters.

Today is the anniversary of the most shameful day in American history: January 6, 2021, when a horde of screaming, violent lunatics attacked the United States Capitol to stop the election count and certification of the votes that resulted in Joe Biden becoming the next president. Hours later, as the riot neared its unsuccessful end,
Trump emerged from hiding and briefly urged the ignorant insurgents to give up and go home. History has largely ignored that speech. Yet, we should not ignore it, for Trump’s own words devastated the ludicrous conspiracy theories, including his own conspiracy theories, which would soon follow.

Today, I make one simple point: Trump’s short speech totally refuted the leading January 6 conspiracy theories. Indeed, he refuted some of his own subsequent conspiracy theories. In fact, he noted - indeed, proudly admired - that the January 6 crowd insurrected against the United States on his own behalf, and he blessed them. They were not Democrats disguised as MAGA Republicans. They were not Antifa. They were not federal agents leading a “fedsurrection.” 

The bizarre conspiracy theories spread in violation of all reason. It is time to put them down, not by quoting the mainstream media (which conspiracy theorists never trust), nor by checking facts (since, after all, conspiracy theories hold facts in contempt), but by quoting Trump’s exact words. Trump’s own statements destroyed the conspiracy theories.

Yes, January 6 conspiracy theories spread from the outset, angrily endorsed by top Republicans. Several Republican members of Congress, including Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Ron Johnson specifically questioned whether federal officials supported the January 6 riot, presumably to make Trump look bad. My own senator, Ted Cruz, said, “A lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on Jan. 6.”  Representative Clay Higgins claimed that FBI agents were in the crowd, “inside the Capitol dressed as Trump supporters.” Social media pundits regularly castigate Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi for enabling the riot. Indeed, years later, Trump himself blamed the riot on Pelosi. 

These absurd accusations resist endless refutation, but can they survive Trump’s own words? I don’t see how! So, let us remember Trump’s concluding speech that day! Let us look at his exact words. 

First, in his mercifully brief but despicable speech, Trump not only identified with the conspiracy theorists but shared their suffering:

“I know your pain, I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side.”

Trump continued by lying that “this was a fraudulent election.”

Second, Trump praised the rioters:

“We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil.”

Trump would never have praised Antifa, nor would he have praised FBI agents who supposedly rioted against him. He praised the crowd because he knew they were his people. No other motive could explain his speech. 

Finally, Trump, identified with the rioters’ false anger but acknowledged that the riot had been defeated and the protestors needed to go home:

“But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt.”

Finally, once again sympathizing with the rioters, Trump told them:

“I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.”

Donald J. Trump

Now, the people who falsely believe that the 2020 election was stolen will never learn, will never change, and will never accept reality. I can’t help them. Let us, nevertheless, notice that Trump himself knew that the rioters were on his side. Trump admired them. Trump said that he admired them. He said he loved them!

So, the rioters were not a hidden cabal of Nancy Pelosi supporters. Trump would never have loved them. This was not a cabal of federal agents who defied Trump’s authority as their president and demonstrated against his electoral defeat. Trump would not have loved them, either. These were Trump’s people, and Trump acknowledged them, and Trump shared their pain. Period.

To believe that the rioters were anyone other than Trump’s most fanatical supporters defies, not just logic, not just facts, but Trump’s own heartfelt words. Trump and his supporters can, and do, spread other lies to justify January 6, but this particular set of falsehoods collapses under Trump’s own language.

This was lucky for the cause of truth. In his brief, lie-filled speech, Trump could, ironically, not resist speaking from his true, albeit foul, heart. He loved the rioters, empathized with their fears, and sympathized with their goals. As it happens, confirmed liar that he was, Trump still could not resist telling the one central truth.

To overcome conspiracy theories poses a great challenge. Conspiracy theorists ignore fact-checkers and cling to their make-believe world like a seamy security blanket. They sneer at anyone who might question their narrative. They cannot, however, conceivably question the words of Donald Trump himself. By momentarily stating the truth, Trump dissipated an entire set of conspiracy theories. All we need to do is to remember what Trump said on that shameful day. From speech, a hidden truth. “We love you,” Trump said. “I know how you feel.” 

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

Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

by William D. Harpine

_____________________

For my other posts about January 6 rhetoric, search for "January 6" in the box at right.

Follow-up: After I posted this, I saw that the White House published a note that, indeed, repeated the same conspiracy theories that Trump carelessly discredited in his second January 6 speech. How shameless, and oh, how easily people forget! 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Official 2025 Inaugural Portrait of Donald J. Trump, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of January 6 Capitol riot, by TapTheForwardAssist, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

American Presidents and the Rhetoric of Virtue

William McKinley

“We hope that all who are represented here may be moved to higher and nobler effort for their own and the world's good.”

– President William McKinley, Buffalo, New York, September 5, 1901

As the nation’s political and symbolic leaders, United States presidents have long encouraged public virtue. Until this week, that is, when virtue seems to get lost in the muck, as President Donald Trump posted a bizarre video that depicts him as a fighter pilot, wearing a royal crown, divebombing peaceful demonstrators with his own fecal matter.

Trump’s disgusting video, which his political movement has solidly supported, invites us to put aside the day’s horrors, the unspeakable disgrace, the indelible contempt that Trump has brought to our nation, and to remember that American presidents have regularly urged their fellow citizens to live virtuous lives, to follow the honorable course, and to do right by one another. For one of the President’s traditional roles is to bring out our best. And this is exactly what previous presidents have undertaken – over, over, and over. Until now. Let us not wallow in disgust and Trump’s infantile behavior. Let us, instead, remember uplifting rhetoric’s long tradition. Let us remember history’s finest lessons! We can begin with our first president.

McKinley's Last Speech: Inclusive, Rational, Persuasive

 

George Washington

George Washington immediately set his new nation’s moral tone. In his First Inaugural Address, he offered his fellow citizens principles of honor and moral behavior. Indeed, Washington took it for granted that, despite their policy disagreements, the opposing political movements would all forever agree on basic principles: honor, freedom, and justice. He further asserted that only good and moral people could enjoy free government and command the world’s admiration: 

“… the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world.”

The Father of Our Country continued:

“… there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.”

A population that forgets virtue has forsaken happiness! Words to ponder indeed. The Father of Our Country set the tone, and Abraham Lincoln, who was perhaps, our greatest president, continued it while facing the most trying circumstances.


Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln

Even during the trials of the American Civil War, a violent struggle like no other that our nation has experienced, the President of the United States urged reconciliation, forgiveness, and mutual respect.

Abraham Lincoln, who preserved the Union, was perhaps the most elegant speaker our nation has ever produced. And maybe the wisest. Let us consider the words that concluded his Second Inaugural Address in 1865. He gave that speech at the end of the Civil War, a time when grief, hatred, and bloody horror spread across the entire land, when few households had not lost a husband, son, or brother, and urged the warring parties to unite with forgiveness and kindness:

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

“With malice toward none!” Not just victory, but “a just, and a lasting peace.”

Did the reunited nation fully live up to Lincoln’s plea? Of course not. A disgruntled Southerner soon shot Lincoln dead. As the years passed, the nation was wracked by the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, racial segregation, the myth of the Lost Cause, and the violent oppression of civil rights.

Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time

Nevertheless, Lincoln urged the nation to do what was right, to live virtuously, and to overcome our differences. We would all – all of us – have been better off if we had lived by his rules. Lincoln tried, almost with his dying breath, to put the United States on the right path.


John F. Kennedy

John Kennedy was, in his own way, as eloquent as Lincoln. Like Washington and Lincoln, he encouraged patriotism and selflessness. In his Inaugural Address, Kennedy stated a model of virtue and citizenship that should inspire every American patriot:

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Not only did he urge Americans to “ask what you can do for your country,” but, recognizing that national power brings moral obligations, Kennedy encouraged the entire world to work for freedom and justice:

“My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

(That, by the way, was my mother’s favorite passage from Kennedy’s great speech.) A decorated veteran of World War II, Kennedy knew that the United States led the free world and that other nations looked to us for an example.

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: A Call to Service


Ronald Reagan

John Kennedy was not the last president to express moral sentiments as the leader of the free world! Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly

Reagan at the UN

in New York City, Ronald Reagan reminded the assembled world leaders of the “fellowship of the human race.” He praised the human spirit:

“The responsibility of this assembly -- the peaceful resolution of disputes between peoples and nations -- can be discharged successfully only if we recognize the great common ground upon which we all stand: our fellowship as members of the human race, our oneness as inhabitants of this planet, our place as representatives of billions of our countrymen whose fondest hope remains the end to war and to the repression of the human spirit.”

Reagan perfectly well understood the traumas of human history, the injustices that people have wreaked upon one another. Nevertheless, he urged the United Nations to look past those horrors to create a better world:

“Yes, the deeds of infamy or injustice are all recorded, but what shines out from the pages of history is the daring of the dreamers and the deeds of the builders and the doers.”

Dreamers and builders and doers! Can we live by Reagan’s wisdom? That was in the old days, of course, when American leadership was unquestioned. 

The Lesson to Remember!

For the lesson that Reagan, and many other presidents, have taught is a lesson in rhetorical leadership.

Of course, I could go on. In his Second Inaugural Address, President William McKinley, a heartfelt conservative, told the nation to move past party loyalty: “There are some national questions in the solution of which patriotism should exclude partisanship.” Alas, McKinley’s simple lesson seems to have vanished in the mists. A century later, President Barack Obama reminded the United States that, “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned.” 

Yes, greatness must indeed be earned. Boasting and bragging make no one great. Sadly, we now seem to live in an era in which people mock virtue. We now live in an era when the current President of the United States celebrates the vilest behavior imaginable. Now, yes, the reader might respond that not all presidents have been virtuous people. The reader might remark that the United States has not always done right. That’s not the point: we all have faults. The most important thing is that, recognizing their role as leaders, American presidents have consistently spoken to guide the nation onto a right path.

Leadership is not all about power, cruelty, and violence. The most powerful leadership is moral leadership. The most powerful leadership comes when we inspire ourselves and others to be our best, to strive for excellence, to live lives of compassion, justice, and, yes, virtue. The most powerful leadership is to guide people on the right path.

The most disturbing part of Donald Trump’s disgusting doggy-doo video is not just that he published it, for nothing that Trump does surprises me. No, the most disturbing part is that his leading supporters not only tolerate, but excuse and even celebrate Trump as he leads the United States into depravity. Yes, leaders can move us down, just as they can move us up.

Still, all is not lost. Our forebears still guide us. We can still act “with malice toward none.” We can still remember to “ask what you can do for your country.” High school history students across the country were taught those lessons. Our presidents’ wise speeches laid down our moral principles. Let us remember them. Let us try to live by them. For true conservativism comes from true traditions, and a proud line of American presidents have handed those traditions down to us. Let us live by them.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of William McKinley, public domain, Library of Congress  

Image of Abraham Lincoln, public domain, Library of Congress

Image of Ronald Reagan, Public Domain, Ronald Reagan Library