Donald Trump's Iranian Bombing Speech: Whom Should We Believe?

“There has never been a military,” boasted United States President Donald Trump, “that could do what took place just a little while ago.” Trump made this statement on June 21 after a group of United States Air Force aircraft and United States Navy vessels bombed Iran to destroy its nuclear enrichment program. Trump defended his action in a televised speech. He promised to attack Iran again if that nation failed to comply with his demands. Force majeure.

Few major speeches have relied as much on the speaker’s credibility as this one. Trump presented almost no evidence to prove that Iran either had or was developing nuclear weapons. If we trust Trump, we might believe him. Do we trust Trump, or the experts? Do we trust Trump to have gathered accurate information? Do we think that competent people surround him?

To be specific, Trump’s key statements offered no evidence whatsoever to support his claims:

“A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

In this case, any evidence about Iran’s nuclear program is mired in the mysteries of international espionage. This situation differs from, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor speech, when Japan had openly attacked an American naval base. Trump’s speech also diverges from the argument that, “we should trust the president because he has all of the intelligence information.” This was not a unanimous decision. Individuals with knowledge of the situation spoke against the attack. No, the audience response to this speech depends entirely on whether they consider the speaker to be personally credible.

What was missing from Trump’s brief speech? Evidence! He cited no intelligence reports. He quoted no nuclear warfare experts. He gave no facts and figures. Saying “Everybody heard those names” does not count as proof. Since the speech included no facts or evidence to prove that Iran was about to produce nuclear weapons, Trump implicitly asked the nation – and the world – to accept his views purely on trust.

But what about the experts that Trump did not cite? What did they think? In contrast to Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, the president’s chief national security officer, had earlier stated that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. The joint assessments of the nation’s national security apparatus presumably led her to that conclusion.

Disbelieving Gabbard’s views, Trump told reporters that, “I don’t care what she said.” More to the point, Gabbard was excluded from the final meetings where Trump and his other top advisers agreed to launch the attack. Perhaps bowing to pressure, Gabbard later backtracked. Quite odd. 

As a former college debater, I spent most of my academic career teaching classes in debate and public speaking. I was trained to debate with evidence and reasoning. Yet, Trump’s speech notably contained no evidence. Not bad evidence - no evidence. Can such a speech persuade people? Of course it can! Public speaking teachers from the ancient Greeks and up to the present have noted that the speaker’s credibility is the greatest persuasive factor. An important research article by my late professor and mentor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague, Theodore Clevenger, Jr., showed that credibility is a function of how the audience perceives the speaker’s expertise, goodwill, and dynamism.

With that in mind, despite my mistrust of Gabbard’s personal motives, I, for one, am somewhat more inclined to trust the intelligence establishment than political leaders. It would be valuable to hear directly from, for example, the CIA’s professional Iran specialists.

Let’s look at some examples. From the Vietnam escalation (the Gulf of Tonkin clash), to the Iraq war (did Iraq actually have chemical weapons? None were found), and on to the present, the United States' leaders have too often let political expediency overcome facts. Trump’s terrible record among fact checkers reinforces my mistrust. (As of this morning, PolitFact has rated hundreds of Trump’s statements, with a summary of 3% True, 7% Untrue, 11% Half True, 19% Mostly False, 39% False, and a stunning 18% Pants on Fire.) Thus, more than half of the statements that PolitiFact checked were untrue. That is bad even for a politician.) Of course, conservatives who think that fact checkers are left-wing Marxist stooges will care little about a fact-checkers' statistics. 

So, let us continue with Andersen and Clevenger’s theory. PolitFact leads me to doubt Trump’s expertise and good will. His enthusiastic speaking style, however, surely helps his uncritical target audience find him credible. Although Trump presented no evidence, perhaps his skillful identification with conservative voters leads them to trust him. Average Americans (like me) have no direct access to the nation’s intelligence findings; therefore, we find ourselves wallowing in a game of trust or mistrust. Truth or Dare. No, I do not trust the Iranian government. But can we trust the American president?

We Americans, and the world at large, find ourselves evaluating this momentous occasion according to our personal, subjective evaluations of President Trump’s credibility: our own judgment of his expertise, goodwill, and dynamism. Trump left us unaided by any of the evidence that he, unfortunately, failed to cite.

Maybe Trump figured that he did not need to prove his points. Plenty of Americans trust him implicitly Furthermore, basic wartime psychology will lead many Americans to support the decision to bomb Iran. Still, I wish that Trump had stated his proof. Perhaps he had no proof to state. Maybe the bombing raid and subsequent speech were merely a political ploy to distract the public from recent controversies about immigration or Trump’s infamous military parade. Maybe Trump has prevented World War III. Maybe he has triggered World War III. Who knows? The inexorable march of history will eventually judge who was right.

by William D. Harpine   

__________

Research Note: I didn’t only teach public speaking. Priding myself on being a communication generalist, I also spent several years teaching college classes about group discussion and group decision-making. The most basic principles of effective group decision-making are to solicit opinions from all viewpoints, to welcome dissent, and to give special attention to people with whom we disagree. If we suppress dissent, we often suppress truths. One-sided discussions are bad discussions. That is well proven. Now, pundits often ream social scientists for offering uncertain, inconsistent, or poorly proven conclusions. In contrast, the evidence about how to conduct effective group decision-making has been thoroughly established. In Trump's case, certainly, members of the professional intelligence community needed to be involved.

Readers who want to learn more about the decision-making processes that lead to the often-unwise decisions to start wars might look at these two classic books:

Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger

Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, by Irving Janis

Or, for that matter, any college textbook about group discussion or group psychology.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

“Liberation Day in America”: Trump's Tariff Speech

 

“So, this is the beginning of Liberation Day in America.” 

So said President Donald Trump when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles in an Oval Office address on March 27, 2025. “Liberation” is what rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver calls a “god term.” To Weaver, a “god term” is not a religious concept, but rather a metaphor that conveys cultural values that are too intense to question. The word “liberation” carries such power, and is so deeply seated in the United States’ cultural ideology, that few people would doubt it. Other “god terms” from various historical eras might include “progress,” “justice,” or “freedom.”

Viewed as nuts-and-bolts economics, Trump’s policies are dubious at best. Nevertheless, his conversation-stopping sales slogan – “Liberation Day in America” – turned his policy into a matter of pride, hope, and freedom. “Liberation Day” doesn’t make us think about economic charts or government statistics. Instead, it makes us think about ending slavery, emptying concentration camps, and gaining independence. “Liberation Day in America” elevates the discourse to patriotism’s greatest heights. That is the value-laden power of god terms.

That is, Trump pushed ideals, not theory. Trump’s pro-tariff argument assumes, quite falsely, that tariffs place a charge on exporters who exploit the United States. He explained this false premise by saying:

“We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they've been taking over the years. They've taken so much out of our country, friend and foe. And frankly, friend has been oftentimes much worse than foe.”

He offered no proof that other countries have harmed us. Just because he says someone has harmed us does not make it so. Instead, “charge countries” falsely but persuasively switches the economic burden to the nations that Trump thinks are harming us. 

Trump’s argument overlooks a simple point, which is that importers, not exporters, pay tariffs - any tariffs! Importers pay tariffs as products arrive in American ports and then pass the cost to their customers. Tariffs are collected when imports are received, not when they are sent. This lays the expense directly on the United States, not the exporters. As the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research points out, “Studies show that tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration were almost entirely borne by U.S. consumers.” [italics added]

In Trump’s speech, however, liberation is the point. Studies are not the point. Having said that imports threatened the United States, Trump concluded that we must liberate ourselves from foreign competition. Trump promised that competitors would build factories in the United States and thus stimulate the United States’ economy. As history shows, that isn’t how it works.

Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System"

By using a god term, however, Trump shoved detailed economic questions aside. We’re talking about “Liberation Day in America.” We are not talking about statistics. No, we are talking about values: freedom and independence. Liberation. Liberty. The Statue of Liberty. A 25-cent coin carries the word “Liberty.” In Trump’s speech, we are liberating ourselves from foreign competition. “Liberation Day” creates a powerful image that makes America sound great. It is the kind of phrase that can inspire listeners to pride.

For, after all, Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again.” Greatness is a value, and god terms like “Liberation” are about values. “Liberation Day” does not inform people about economic charts or statistics. How boring that would be! “Liberation” is a god term. We do not want other nations to exploit us, and Trump promised a great day of liberation. “Liberation Day” does not inform us, for Trump’s purpose was not to inform, but to make us feel free. 

McKinley's 1896 Speeches Made the Tariff Sound Patriotic - Just Like Trump!

Franklin Roosevelt's Speech against Tariffs

That image, the idea that Trump will free the United States of America, offers relief and salvation. Our culture values liberty above all else. That’s why the word “Liberty” adorns our coins, our statues, and our textbooks. A supposed hero who will, he promises, liberate us from our friends and enemies alike used a god term to remind us of our values and lead us to economic redemption. Are Trump’s tariff policies stunningly unwise? Sadly, yes, but that is not really his point. Is his rhetoric spectacularly compelling? Obviously yes. Underestimate value-driven speeches at your peril. “Liberation Day” might sound grandiose; it might defy logic, but its essence is powerful indeed.  

by William D. Harpine

________________

Research Note: Conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver talks about god terms in his insightful book, The Ethics of Rhetoric. Kenneth Burke’s ground-breaking book A Grammar of Motives offers a somewhat different explanation of “god-terms.”  

Copyright 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image from White House YouTube Channel

Trump's March 4, 2025 Speech to Congress: Why Are His Lies So Persuasive?

“Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old. It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119. I don’t know any of them. I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly…. But a lot of money is paid out to people, because it just keeps getting paid and paid.” 

So President Donald Trump said during his speech to Congress yesterday, March 4, 2025, but he spoke falsely. Unfortunately, falsehoods, distortions, twisted arguments, and outright lies filled Trump’s speech. Politicians tell lies: who would have thought? The real question is, what makes these lies persuasive?

There is a rhetorical reason that massive chains of falsehoods persuade people. The RAND Corporation calls this technique the “Firehose of Falsehoods.” The answer lies in the numbers. A basic propaganda technique is to unload, not one lie, but a vast number of outrageous lies. It’s not a single lie, it’s a firehose. Tell one lie, and the audience might catch you. Spray out enough lies and, well, that is a different story A barrage of arrogant lies can persuade people when a single mild fib does not. To echo the old slogan, quantity has a quality of its own.

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

There’s also a psychological reason that massive chains of falsehood persuade people. The psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model states that people who lack the time, attention, or ability to check facts will tend to believe things that they have heard repeatedly.

So, look at a few of Trump’s outrageous statements.


What about Social Security?

Whenever someone says, “believe it or not,” as Trump did, my Spidey sense tingles away. Trump expounded further:

“And it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country, 1.3 million people from ages 150 to 159 and over 130,000 people, according to the Social Security databases, are age over 160 years old.”

Now, Wired magazine notes that the problem in the Social Security spreadsheet results, not from real data, but from a programming glitch. The chart was created by an obsolete programming language called COBOL that failed to read death dates for older Social Security recipients. Furthermore, Lee Dudek, the new Acting Commissioner of Social Security, notes that “These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.” 

Analyzing the problem in yet more detail, FactCheck.org notes that, although some ineligible people do receive Social Security benefits, the number is nowhere near as great as what Trump claimed. Social Security’s data shows that fewer than 90,000 actual Social Security recipients are 100 years old or older. That sounds about right. So, Trump was just carelessly wrong. Since his claims had been publicly refuted weeks earlier, he has no excuse. 

But Trump told other lies. 


A Mandate? I Think Not

Asserting his power, Trump claimed that:

“The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades.”

ABC News’ fact checkers note, however, that: “Trump's margins of victory — both in raw votes and in percentages — were small by historical standards.” In fact, in the final election results, Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, against 48.3% for his opponent, Kamala Harris. Trump won, yes, but a popular vote advantage of only 1.6% hardly counts as a mandate.


Ended a Non-Existent Mandate? I Think Not

Well, the lies poured on. Trump claimed that he saved the auto industry by ending an “electric vehicle mandate:”

“We ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.”

Oddly, as ABC’s fact checkers note, the Biden administration did not impose an electric vehicle mandate. The administration had signed off on stricter automobile emission standards, which Trump did, in fact, revoke. But an electric vehicle mandate? Didn’t exist.


An Autism Epidemic?

Is there an autism epidemic? Vaccine skeptics and vegetarians cite a supposed autism epidemic to support their views of clean living. Trump’s unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Trump himself, have repeatedly harped on that.

So, it was no surprise in yesterday’s speech when Trump said:

“Not long ago — and you can’t even believe these numbers — one in 10,000 children had autism. One in 10,000, and now it’s one in 36. There’s something wrong. One in 36. Think of that.”

However, a research team led by Sebastian Lundström published this in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2022 said:

“Much – or even most– prevalence increase seems to reflect changes in diagnostic practice and ascertainment.”

Similarly, Tony Charman finds in the prestigious journal The Lancet Psychiatry, 2025, that:

“The authors argue this finding does not indicate rising prevalence per se but changes in the GBD methodology, specifically the exclusion of studies relying on passive case finding (registries or administrative estimates), which underestimate prevalence. The authors found no evidence of an increase in prevalence across a 15-year time window.”

In other words, the supposed increase in autism seems in large part to reflect changing diagnostic criteria, plus more interest by mental health professionals when they work with clients.


Lies and More Lies?

Tell one lie, and you probably persuade no one. Tell a hundred lies? Well, that’s different.  Suppose that Trump tells ten lies in a row. One after the other. Let us suppose that most of the lies are either invented out of thin air, or sucked from the dim recesses of Fox News or Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s dubious website. Lies are easy to produce, since they can arise from nothing, but they are often troublesome to refute. Any debater knows that it is hard to prove a negative.

Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

ABC News’ fact checkers reviewed 12 of Trump’s claims, finding only one to be true, while marking the others with labels like “false,” “misleading, or “lacks context.” FactCheck.org, the premier fact-checking website, studied 12 of Trump’s claims, including some that were different from those that ABC examined, finding all 12 to be dubious. For example, they noted that Trump falsely claimed that Panama had turned control of the Panama Canal over to China. Trump lied about alleged savings from the Department of Government Efficiency and fentanyl shipments from Canada—among other falsehoods.

Now, think about it. After all, how many readers are going to study 12 (or more) seemingly nit-picking fact checks? Or look at several fact checkers? Or examine scientific and historical literature for themselves to verify every throwaway claim that Trump blustered out? Even the fact checkers got exhausted, which is why different fact checking websites covered different claims. It takes time; it takes effort. Isn’t it easier just to dismiss the fact checks as “liberal propaganda” or, maybe, “all politicians tell lies, who cares?”

And that is how the Firehose of Falsehoods overwhelms our critical processes.

Unfortunately, a barrage of lies overwhelms people’s critical capacities. I spent hours just looking up the fact checks that I cited above, and I hardly scratched the surface of Trump’s onslaught. If I didn’t want to write this blog post, would I spend that much time on it? Not likely.

For it was not just one lie. It was a firehose. Suppose someone lies to you and you check them. Fine. But what if someone pumps out dozens of lies? Some of them will slip through. Keep in mind, of course, that many of Trump’s falsehoods have long circulated on Fox News, talk radio, and social media. The Firehose of Falsehoods floods our search for truth. Quantity has a quality of its own.

I have posted previously about the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, developed by psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. Their theory claims how people process and respond to persuasive messages. They show that when people use the Central Route to process a persuasive message, they gather information and think critically. However, the Central Route takes time. It takes effort. It often requires skills that not everyone has.

The alternative is the Peripheral Route. When people lack the time, ambition, or skill to use the Central Route, they might look at the source’s attractiveness or perceived expertise, or simply the frequency with which messages are received, or other trivial criteria. That is where Trump’s cascade of lies works. People who use the Central Route will quickly reject Trump’s ludicrous claims. People who use the Peripheral Route might be impressed by Trump’s self-confidence, charismatic speaking style, and, most of all, the relentless firehose of misinformation. At that point, sadly, quantity takes on a quality of its own, and, audiences can get overwhelmed.


Conclusion

Trump’s rhetoric could never persuade wise, careful listeners, but wise, careful listeners are not his audience. To be fair, no one has the time or ability to study and verify every single persuasive message. Trump obviously knows that. By presenting a deluge of obvious, easily discredited lies, Trump carried his listeners on a roller coaster ride of bluster, suspicion, paranoia, and absurdity. As a master of those dark arts, Trump follows the path of the Big Lie. As Goebbels demonstrated in the previous century, if you want to tell lies, go big.

by William D. Harpine  

____________

Research Note: 

Here is the original article about the Firehose of Falsehood. Any current persuasion textbook will discuss the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Richard Perloff's book is worth a look. I have blogged about the Elaboration Likelihood Model several times. This post about Paul Ryan seems apropos to the moment:

Paul Ryan Gave a Speech about Civility, but Are We Listening?

Image: Official White House photo

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

How Not to Be Fooled: America, Protect Yourself from Elon Musk!

Donald Trump, official WH photo

Did Donald Trump just call himself a “radical leftist?” In a recent social media post, Trump said:

“DOGE: Looks like Radical Left Reuters was paid $9,000,000 by the Department of Defense to study ‘large scale social deception.’ give back the money, now!”

However, elementary investigation finds that this program dates to 2018, under the first Trump administration. Furthermore, the grant did not go to Reuters News, but to an entirely different Reuters company. A headline in The Independent gleefully stated: “Trump demands ‘Radical Left Reuters’ return a $9 million government contract. He’s the one who paid it out in the first place.” Further, the actual contract centered on preventing cyberattacks. The facts, with the complete story, were easy to find.


What Is DOGE?

DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency, a semi-mythical government agency), headed by multi- billionaire Elon Musk, purports to examine government fraud and waste. Unfortunately, they seem to pursue that laudable goal with neither skill nor integrity. The program in question investigated cyber hacking, not social deception, and was a product of Donald Trump’s first administration. That is, like most conspiracy theories, the Musk/Trump social media exchange began with a speck of truth – in this case, an itty-bitty, tiny speck – and then spun out a far-reaching, complicated, and utterly paranoid spiderweb of speculation. All encapsulated into cryptic social media posts.


This Isn’t the First Time

Yesterday, I noted how a reporter corrected Musk for wrongly claiming that a USAID grant had spent millions of dollars sending condoms to Hamas terrorists. Even when Musk’s claim turned out to be wrong, he hedged but didn’t back down. This new conspiracy theory proves that they still have not learned to check their facts.

Earlier Post: Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

 
DOGE dominates the news with endless stories alleging government fraud and waste. Although I lack time to investigate all of them, I have yet to find even one of Musk’s major accusations that stands up to even elementary scrutiny. Now, granted, fraud and waste do occur in the federal government. Probably plenty. It’s less clear that Musk and his inept team will uncover any of it. Instead, they rely on what I have called the “jackhammer method of persuasion”—to unleash more deceptions than anyone can hope to track. 

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

Yet, deception often works. Over the years, many gullible voters uncritically and angrily respond to every wild accusation: the FBI shot JFK, Nelson Rockefeller was the leader of the world communist party, the government created HIV, millions of immigrants are lining up, fake IDs in hand, to vote without ever being caught. Millions of people believe that the COVID vaccines are deadly, sadly leading to thousands of well-documented but needless Republican deaths. We must sort the silly from the true. So: can we engage in critical thinking? Is critical thinking even that hard?

And, Now, a New Dubious Claim

With that in mind, let us look at the Reuters claim. Citing DOGE, President Trump claimed on social media that:

“DOGE: Looks like Radical Left Reuters was paid $9,000,000 by the Department of Defense to study ‘large scale social deception.’ give back the money, now!” [italics added]

Since this program dated to 2018, when Trump was president, it seems that Trump was calling himself a radical leftist. 

Proudly responding on X, and undaunted by any mundane details like dates, Musk added:

“Reuters received far more money than this from US government organizations, but via various subsidiaries and intermediaries to hide how they were getting it. This is just what @DOGE has found so far.”

Wow! Did DOGE discover that the federal government was trying to stomp out social deception? Heaven forbid! What Trump supporter could tolerate that? After all, Trump thrives on deception…but I digress.


Lessons to Learn

Musk and his team obviously exercised little effort to learn the facts about the program in question. My impression is that they usually do not. Therefore incumbent, the viewer or reader must check the facts. Since the facts, in this case, were effortless to find, there is really no excuse – none at all – for Elon Musk to be fooling people.

We live in the Information Age. Almost everyone over the age of two has a computer. Yes, I know that it is easy, and tempting, to believe whatever these paranoid con artists might want to tell you. It is, however, almost as easy to check the facts.

I am sure that we all want to stop government waste, fraud, and abuse. To do so, however, we need to have the facts. You don’t need to be a genius to learn the facts. It makes no difference whether you like or dislike what people say. The only thing that matters is the truth. Unfortunately, sometimes the people who scream “fraud” the loudest turn out to be the guiltiest. Musk and Trump have repeatedly proven themselves to be unreliable. That puts the burden on the rest of us. We do not need to plow through the archives at the Library of Congress. We do not, however, want to start by getting angry and shouting, “How do radical leftists get away with this fraud?” Instead, we must delay the anger for a moment. Ask yourself, “Is this even true? Am I getting the whole story?” If, and only if, the accusations turn out to be right, then, yes, go ahead and get angry. Wise people think first, and only after thinking do they rage.

To this point, Musk, Trump, and DOGE have spewed out various wild claims without checking the details. Nor do they back down when corrected. Given their track record, the public would be unwise to trust them. If their next accusations turn out to be inaccurate, don’t be gullible. Remember that at least two people are at fault in every confidence game: the con artist, and the gullible mark. Don’t be a mark. Don’t be naïve. Take a moment to check the facts. Check the facts first, and get angry later. America depends on it. Thank you.

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

___________

P.S. There is a reason that conservatives tell people not to trust the mainstream media. That is because they only want you to hear one viewpoint. The idea that you might check up on them – that you might examine their claims – terrifies them. Whenever they tell you not to check them out, well, take that as a warning. Always.

P.P.S. Do liberals tell lies? Of course they do. Seriously. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Lyndon Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Unfortunately, I see no sign that Trump, Musk, or anyone currently on Fox News has either the moxie or the talent to catch them. Once again, that job falls to you as the reader, the listener, the audience – seek the truth and don’t be gullible.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Donald Trump, Prophet of American Doom and Restoration? His 2025 Inaugural Address

Donald Trump's 2025 Inauguration

“The future is ours, and our golden age has just begun.”

So said United States President Donald Trump during his second inaugural address, delivered in the United States Capitol on January 20, 2025. Trump warned that Joe Biden’s presidency had crushed America. However, by returning to the old ways, rejecting sexual variations, providing security, and ensuring justice, Trump promised to restore the United States of America. Conservatives blame disasters on change. Restoring the old ways brings renewal. Simple.

Although I doubt very much whether either Trump or any of his advisors realized it, he spoke in the prophetic style of repudiation and restoration – a rhetorical program that has echoed through American political rhetoric since the nation’s founding, and which, historically, reflects the teachings of the ancient Hebrew prophets. I question Trump’s accuracy—the nation is not really declining, and Trump’s policies will restore nothing of value—but the metaphorical pair of doom and restoration nevertheless carries great power. Return to the old ways, and everything will be fine—that was Trump’s message.

This theme resonates through centuries of conservative speeches. “The whole land shall be desolate,” the biblical prophet Jeremiah warned (Jeremiah 4:27). Subsequently, prophets of restoration, like Zechariah, showed that a nation can restore justice only by returning to the old ways: “Turn ye unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you” (Zechariah 1:2). While they brazenly ignore Zechariah’s moral imperatives, conservative speakers from the Puritans to Barry Goldwater often warned of impending collapse. Indeed, although I don’t think Trump and his speechwriters know anything about Jewish or Christian teachings, they clearly absorbed the attitude. (Although, unlike Trump, the prophets demanded mercy for poor people and immigrants, Malachi 3:5.).

Disaster!

So, early in his inaugural address, Trump cited an apocalyptic “crisis of trust.” Speaking to the Capitol crowd, Trump complained, with his billionaire sponsors literally listening from the front rows, but without a trace of irony, about a “radical and corrupt establishment:”

“As we gather today, our government confronts a crisis of trust. For many years, a radical and corrupt establishment has extracted power and wealth from our citizens while the pillars of our society lay broken and seemingly in complete disrepair.” [italics added]

Continuing, Trump complained that his predecessor’s government was unable to manage even the simplest emergencies, while “stumbling” through “catastrophic events.” Trump elaborated on the bizarre conspiracy theories that had propelled his campaign rhetoric:

“We now have a government that cannot manage even a simple crisis at home, while at the same time stumbling into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad. It fails to protect our magnificent, law-abiding American citizens, but provide sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions that have illegally entered our country from all over the world.”

Natural disasters, including hurricane Helene, which devastated the mountainous areas of North Carolina, and terrible fires in Los Angeles, spread terrible misery. Scientists might partially attribute these disasters to climate change. In contrast, Trump attributed them to the government’s moral failure:

“Our country can no longer deliver basic services in times of emergency, as recently shown by the wonderful people of North Carolina — who have been treated so badly and other states who are still suffering from a hurricane that took place many months ago or, more recently, Los Angeles, where we are watching fires still tragically burn from weeks ago without even a token of defense.”

Trump’s hyperbolic language callously ignored the massive efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and California firefighters. But I digress.

Having reviled his predecessor’s alleged failures, Trump promised to restore the United States:

“After all we have been through together, we stand on the verge of the four greatest years in American history. With your help, we will restore America promise and we will rebuild the nation that we love — and we love it so much.” [italics added]

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 1: Parallel Phrases

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 2, "American Carnage"

Restoration!

Trump, however, assured the nation that he would restore what was lost. He would restore what was lost by reversing Biden’s “betrayal.” Trump would return the United States to the old ways:

“My recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal and all of these many betrayals that have taken place and to give the people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy, and, indeed, their freedom. From this moment on, America’s decline is over. And we are going to bring law and order back to our cities.” [italics added]

Trump promised, not only to restore the United States, but to return to the 19th century concept of American exceptionalism and to bring about a new golden age – an age of peace – an age of unity – an age of power:

“We will be a nation like no other, full of compassion, courage, and exceptionalism. Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable.”

Donald Trump, official portrait

Among his many proposed reforms, Trump promised to remove government protections for minority races or people who did not conform to conservative sexual behavior. Indeed, rejecting Civil Rights reforms like Affirmative Action, Trump promised to restore the nation’s traditional racial and sexual attitudes:

“This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life. We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.

“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

Those statements, which much shocked mainstream moderators, make perfect sense if we understand that Trump sought to restore what was lost. The 14th amendment to the Constitution promised everyone “equal protection of the law.” Conservatives have never liked the 14th. The 14th mandated change—and, to Trump, change caused our troubles.

Trump also promised to restore traditional sexual mores. Scientists contend that sex and gender are far from simple. The Cleveland Clinic points out that about 1%-2% of people are not unambiguously male or female, and many people vary from the XX or XY chromosome types. For example, some people might be XYY. Instead of facing such complexities, Trump promised to outlaw them. To return to the old ways. To value tradition, not newfangled ideas. To keep things simple.

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

Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:" Prophecy in American Rhetoric

Move Forward by Going Back!

So, overall, probably without realizing it, Trump spoke in the prophetic rhetorical tradition. Just as ancient prophets sought to restore the old ways, Trump sought to restore tradition. If that required him to misrepresent the Biden administration, to overlook basic biology, or to make absurd promises, so be it. It was the formula, not the facts, that carried his power. We failed, he said, because we changed. To succeed does not mean to move forward: it means to restore what we have lost. To go back. To restore what we forsook. To restore our old values. Such was the prophetic message as often (mis)represented in American rhetoric, and such was Trump’s agenda.

by William D. Harpine  

_____________

Research Note: American speakers from Jonathan Edwards to Daniel Webster to Ronald Reagan spoke in the prophetic style. Now, I do not in any way mean that Judeo-Christian teachings require us to move backwards, nor that the prophets rejected basic moral teachings. Evidently unknown to Trump, the prophets wrote of caring for the marginalized and spreading justice. I refer instead to the way that American speakers talk in the prophetic tradition. Prof. James Darsey has written that radical speakers often quote the Old Testament prophets. My University of Illinois mentor, Prof. Kurt Ritter, published an important and much-cited research article about the jeremiad, the typical American doom-saying rhetoric that warns us of upcoming calamity. Prof. James Gilmore and his colleagues have written brilliantly about jeremiad themes in Trump’s earlier speeches.

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Trump's inauguration: United States Congress, public domain

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

Goals Are Not Plans: The Sad Case of Donald Trump

Some voters want their candidates to have actual plans. Others don’t seem to care.

During his infamous October 27, 2024 Madison Square Garden rally, presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to excel at foreign affairs. However, he stated no plans, only goals:

“I will end the war in Ukraine, which would’ve never happened if I were president. I will stop the chaos in the Middle East and I will prevent World War III from happening.”

OK, great. We all want that.

But those are only goals. Where are the policies? How would Trump have prevented the Ukraine-Russia war? I’d love to know. How will he get peace? Will he force Russia to withdraw? Negotiate a settlement? If so, how? Will he just cut Ukraine off and let Russia massacre the survivors? If so, why?

How will he be the first leader in thousands of years to end the Middle East conflicts?

How will he stop the wars and end the chaos? What policies, what plans, could achieve those goals? Who knows? Trump has never said, not in this speech, not anywhere.

Where are the details? Yes, the details matter.

Audiences, when you hear a campaign promise, always ask, “how?” Never, ever put blind faith in any candidate. Never assume they have actual plans. Until proven otherwise, assume that they are spouting hot air. Always ask, at least to yourself, “how will you do that?”

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap 

We all want peace. Goals, however, are not plans. Leadership lies in the details. Public speeches always come down to the audience! Audiences, it is your fault, and yours alone, if you fail to insist on details. Critical thinking can be hard, but sometimes it is as simple as asking: how? 

Vote wisely, America.

by William D. Harpine  

____________

P.S. Thanks to rev.com, a transcript service, for preparing a text of Trump’s speech.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Trump and Vance Spread Lies about the Haitian Immigrants. But Here Is My Family's Story.

Immigrants at Ellis Island

If you live in the United States, unless you are 100% Native American, you are an immigrant or the descendent of immigrants.

All the Republican talk (and when I say “talk,” I mean “lies”) about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio got me to think about my maternal grandparents. I am thinking about them because their lives were so like those of the Haitian immigrants, and the challenges they faced were so similar. 

Did Trump Reset the Agenda When He Falsely Accused Haitians of Eating Pets?

My grandfather Michael and grandmother Anna left Ukraine in the early 20th Century to escape a terrible potato famine. The Ukrainian economy having long been oppressed by Russian, Austrian, and Polish overlords, the people began to starve when the potato crops failed. The Ukrainian diet consisted of little bits of cheese, wheat pastries stuffed with potatoes, lots of other potatoes, and meat once a year for Easter.  They had small gardens. The Easter meal featured a slice of bologna-like meat. It was not unlike the diet that hundreds of millions of European poor people ate at that time. Opportunities to advance, to gain an education, or even to find productive employment, simply did not exist. A person’s ambition, ability, and dedication were irrelevant.

Desperate, and unable to feed their children, Ukrainians sent many of them to America, the land of

Statue of Liberty

opportunity, where the Statue of Liberty would greet them with the promise of freedom and justice: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

So it was with Michael and Anna. Sixteen years old, Anna stepped off the boat, with minimal paperwork, with few marketable skills, and knowing no English. She made her case to the authorities and walked into the United States. Knowing no Ukrainian, the clerk at Ellis Island misspelled Michael’s last name (doing the best he could) and off to the piers Michael went.

Local charities helped them. They learned that western Pennsylvania’s steel mills were hiring. Michael and Anna each moved there, with nothing to their names. Michael and Anna married. A skilled carpenter, Michael took a mill job. His country fiddling talent made him popular but didn’t really help economically. Anna sold eggs. They never really mastered English (their family and friends could understand their patois just fine). They worshiped at the Ukrainian church. They never had much money until their older children grew up and built them a two-story country home with a huge kitchen, on a lot with generous garden space. Michael made much of the house’s cabinetry.

Michael and Anna raised twelve children. The older children, who were shuffled to the back of the classroom and received little special help, learned English in school and taught it to their brothers and sisters. My mother, one of the younger children, never really learned Ukrainian (she could understand it but not speak it). She was still placed in the back of the classroom, simply as an act of ethnic bigotry. She joined the choir and the debate team. Graduating at the top of her high school class, she was denied the valedictory scholarship, which instead went to a boy. She moved to Washington (like many children of immigrants, seeking work where she could find it) and became an office worker in the Pentagon. Like everyone in my family, she read voraciously.

Others of Michael and Ann’s children included engineers, a nurse, loving homemakers, and two American Army war heroes. My Uncle Peter died in the Ardennes, nineteen years old, fighting against Nazis. Michael and Anna’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren, now scattered across the land, include people dedicated to the law, medicine, and many other professions. Yes, at least one of us became a university professor and author.

Michael and Anna’s story is not unique. It is nothing special. It is repeated, literally millions of times, across this great land. It is the same story that the Haitians in Springfield are writing today.

If you want to make America great, that is how it is done. And, trust me, Trump (himself the grandson of immigrants and husband of an immigrant) has no clue. That same cluelessness, of course, explains why Vance specifically and shamelessly admitted that he was lying about the Haitian immigrants:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” [italics added]

His eager voters do not seem to care that Vance was lying. That is because facts and reality do not create their resentment. No, to understand the hostility toward immigrants, we look only to the dark forces of fear and suspicion.

The moral of this story? Yes, receiving immigrants, people who speak an unfamiliar language, sing their own songs, and worship in their own way, does affect the receiving communities. It always does. It is, nevertheless, the American way. Employed immigrants also strengthen our economy and make the US a stronger nation. As a recent article in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy notes, tax-paying immigrants can have an indirect helpful effect on the nation’s fiscal health.

Emigration is even harder than immigration. People leave their native lands, almost always because they are fleeing a nightmare. Immigrants often face suspicion, hostility, injustice, and anger. My mother, her brothers, sisters, and parents certainly did. Yet, they contributed their own small part to making America great.

And, in contrast, as Trump and Vance give their loathsome speeches, they are not just lying about the Haitian immigrants. They are lying about America.

As I have often said, speakers can make their point by telling a story. This is my family's story.

by William D. Harpine

____________

Earlier Posts About Immigration Speeches:

Romans 13, Jeff Sessions, and the Cultural Heritage of Conservative Immigration Policy

How Did Donald Trump's Story about Police Heroes Help Him Make a Point about Immigration?

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Ellis Island: Library of Congress, public domain

Image of Statue of Liberty: National Park Service, public domain

Did Trump Reset the Agenda When He Accused Haitians of Eating Pets?

Donald Trump

During his September 10, 2024 debate with Kamala Harris, brimming with indignation at the latest nonsensical conspiracy theory, Donald Trump complained about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio:

“They're eating the cats. They're eating - they're eating the pets of the people that live there.”

This debate was otherwise a failure for Trump, according to the polls, even in the minds of many Republicans. That is because Harris appeared to be stronger, better prepared, and more articulate. She seized the political agenda. Nevertheless, Trump re-seized the political agenda by lying about cats (and dogs). It was a delayed effect. So, in that twisted way, Trump turned the worst part of an embarrassing debate loss into a remarkable political advantage.

Of all the ridiculous things that Trump said during the debate, his comment about cats and dogs was the silliest – the most absurd – the most easily discredited. But for days after, the press could hardly talk about anything else. Thus, by lying through his teeth, Trump retook control of the agenda. People quickly forgot about what a terrible impression he had made while debating, and they forgot how much better Harris did than he did. None of that mattered any more. That is what “seizing the agenda” means. No, it all came down to the pets. Was anyone actually eating the pets? No, of course not. How silly. That wasn’t the point.

As one of her debating techniques, Harris cleverly provoked Trump into spewing out his conspiracy theories. Never one to overlook an opportunity, Trump immediately launched into a diatribe that may well be the lowest point in recent American politics. He argued that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio had been stealing and eating people’s pets. (The fact that his diatribe succeeded makes one tremble in horror):

“And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora [Colorado] or Springfield [Ohio]. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame.”

This was, of course, like Trump’s other conspiracy theories, not true. The rumor, which apparently originated in right-wing social media posts, arose entirely from a real case in which a woman who is not an immigrant, who lives in an entirely different part of the state, and is said to have frequent run-ins with the authorities, was found cooking a cat. Now, I like cats, and I am against people eating them. However, the Haitian immigrants in Springfield were not eating cats.

Earlier Post: Did Kamala Harris Set the Agenda When She Debated Donald Trump?

Springfield’s mayor, Rob Rue, and local police quickly denied that they had any believable reports that Haitian immigrants were stealing people’s pets, much less eating them. Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, urged for calm. He explained that the Haitian migrants had been in Springfield for years, that they were good residents and hard workers, and that they had helped to revitalize a struggling town. He emphasized that they were legal immigrants:

“What we know is that the Haitians who are in Springfield are legal. They came to Springfield to work. Ohio is on the move, and Springfield has really made a great resurgence with a lot of companies coming in. These Haitians came in to work for these companies. What the companies tell us is that they are very good workers. They’re very happy to have them there. And, frankly, that’s helped the economy.”

Unfortunately, DeWine’s fact-based talk collapsed in the face of anti-immigrant anger. DeWine reported that Springfield has received 33 or more bomb threats, many (but not all!) from overseas. It has become necessary to scour the schools for bombs every morning before classes begin. A cultural event was canceled to prevent anti-immigrant violence.

Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, the son of immigrants, held a town hall in Springfield, where he told a packed audience full of Trump hats that he wasn’t going to talk about cats (apparently realizing that the falsehood was too silly for words), but that he was troubled that so many immigrants had come to the city. Sidestepping the issue further, he said that the big problem was “illegal immigration,” neatly sidestepping the fact that the Haitian immigrants had arrived legally:

“What is the right legal immigration policy in this country? I’m guessing it’s illegal immigration. If you are first act of entering this country breaks the law, you should not be able to enter this country.”

Quickly seeing a way to gain readers and viewers, the press gave abundant attention to Ramaswamy’s slippery comments. Sensing a golden opportunity, Trump himself plans to visit Springfield, much to the mayor’s anxiety, presumably to spread more anti-immigrant ideas.

Even worse, vice presidential nominee J. D. Vance got on television and admitted that he had been lying about the Haitian refugees. Indeed, Vance repeated false claims about the refugees even after his staff determined that the claims were false.

He said:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” [italics added]

So, let’s summarize:

During the debate, Trump made an utterly false and unreasonable complaint about Haitian immigrants who are, first, legally present, second, not eating cats, and, third, making an economic contribution to what had been a dying community.

 
Trump and his supporters quickly generalized the issue. Did it really matter whether the immigrants were legal or not? No, it turns out that they were immigrants, and this was enough to anger many conservatives. For years, I have heard Republicans declare that they support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration. That similarly noble position has, apparently, puffed into the ether.

 
Trump, Vance, and other Republicans are spreading a story that they know to be false. Doing so, they displaced the public agenda for several days, obliterating complaints about Trump’s poor debate performance.

What does it mean that Trump and his supporters have reset the agenda? It now becomes harder to talk about Springfield’s real issues, or the real issues of immigration. Trump and his supporters have filled the discourse with outrageous, easily disproven lies. Sheer malice. Having reset the agenda to immigration, not Trump’s debate performance, they now skitter and scamp to a variety of inconsistent positions. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they switch from one complaint to the other. No, it’s not really the cats that are the real issue, the complaint is that the hospitals are packed. No, it is not really about cats and dogs either; instead, it is that some of the Haitians are bad drivers. No, Trump is not really concerned about cats or dogs. The issue, they say, is that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have opened the border and invited families to come to the U.S. and work.

Trump started the issue by flat-out lying about the immigrants. Caught out, Trump and his supporters simply squirm from one point, to the next, to the next, never settling on one argument, and thus never leaving themselves open to basic dialectic. Arguing with them is like wrestling with a huge ball of half-chilled Jell-O.

On a more complex level, however: by resetting the agenda, Trump has refocused the campaign. We were no longer talking about his confused, awkward debate performance. We, instead, started talking about the issue that made Trump famous: opposition to immigrants. Or, put it this way: Trump lost the debate on September 10, but, within a few days, he and his supporters gleefully rewrote the scoresheet and claimed victory.

Much of the press was hostile to Trump’s arguments. That is not the point at all. No, the point is that for about a week, the press and the pundits talked about Haitian immigrants and cats, to the exclusion of almost anything else in the political realm. Inflation, the economy, the coronavirus – and everything else – almost vanished from public discourse. The (mythical) cats ruled. Trump’s terrible debating was forgotten, and we forgot about his terrible debate because everyone was busy hassling over the most absurd thing he had said during the debate.

Such is American politics.

The cat-eating immigrants were not the only false conspiracy that Trump brought up during the debate. Wishing to be complete, Trump also ranted that FBI crime statistics were fudged, accused former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of being complicit in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building, accused Harris of “weaponizing” the government against him, and falsely claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Those are old-hat conspiracy theories. No one much cares about them anymore. No, it was the cats that captured people’s attention. Now, the cat conspiracy theory was the silliest of the bunch, since no speck of evidence supported it, but it was new. It got people’s attention. People like cats. People like cats more than they like people. Trump and his supporters latched onto the accusation and refused to let it go.

So, people who think that Trump lost the debate because he lost on the issues are missing the point. For example, analyzing the debate right after, Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrongly speculated that Trump’s ranting about the cats and dogs while failing to discuss real issues would cost him dearly:

“The conversations about people eating dogs and cats, calling the leader of Hungary one of the greatest world leaders, repeatedly missing the opportunity to focus on inflation and affordability and the complete inability to present his point of view without completely tearing into her, into Joe Biden, into whomever was in his sights.”

I wish that I believed that Luntz was right. However, Trump recognizes, like no politician before him, that huge segments of the population could not care less about what is, and is not, true. It is not clear that Trump’s tirade about people stealing and eating pets helped him. What is clear is that he regained control of the agenda. We are talking about the issues that he wants us to talk about.

Heaven help us.

by William D. Harpine

______________________

Earlier Posts:

Biden Versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate

Did Donald Trump Change the Subject and Set the Agenda at the RNCC Fundraiser?

Copyright ©  2024 by William D. Harpine

Official White House photo, public domain

Kamala Harris and the Art of the Quick Putdown

Kamala Harris

“That’s it,” briefly said Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris when asked to explain her response to Donald Trump’s latest racist comment. Sometimes, a few words say more than a long speech. Racist comments deserve contempt; they never warrant explanation. Public speakers take notice: brevity can say plenty!


Harris Declined to Explain Her Response

Unfortunately, racial and ethnic hatred have long driven Donald Trump’s political life, and, in an August 29, 2024 interview on CNN, correspondent Dana Bash asked Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris what she thought about Trump’s latest racist insult:

“He suggested that you happened to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of your identity.”

Harris responded:

“Yeah. Same old tired playbook. Next question, please.”

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz tossed in his even briefer response:

“Yeah.”

Apparently dumbfounded, Dana Bash followed up:

“That’s it?”

Harris’ response:

“That’s it.”

Dismissing Trump’s remarks as unworthy of discussion – which, indeed, they were.


Why Was Harris’ Cryptic Response to Trump’s Racism Enough?


Harris’ mother was born in India and her father was from Jamaica. So, like many Americans, Harris has a mixed ethnic background. This horrified Donald Trump when he spoke with the National Association of Black Journalists:

“I’ve known her a long time, indirectly ... And she was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I did not know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black.”

Happened to turn Black? Trump continued:

“I respect either one,” he added, “but she obviously doesn’t, because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden, she made a turn and … she became Black. ... Somebody should look into that, too.

“Is she Indian or is she Black?”

Reflecting on my childhood in a deeply neo-Confederate region, I learned that conservatives have long complained bitterly that they don’t know what to call Black people. For my entire upbringing, conservatives grumbled that they did not know whether to call Black people “colored,” “Black,” “Negro,” or whatever. They have longed to pigeonhole minority people under labels. Predictably, they pretend that Harris’ background confuses them. That, evidently, explains why Trump thought he could “respect either one,” but evidently not both. He was troubled because he did not know, “Is she Indian or is she Black?”


Brazen Racism Does Not Deserve Refutation

Harris could have expounded about her heritage, but what would be the point? Nor would any explanation address Trump’s racism, for racism does not cooperate with reason. Instead, Harris wisely did not let Bash move her onto Trump's agenda. 

Harris’ brief response was enough: “Same old tired playbook.” Yes, Trump’s complaint stands in an endless heritage of racist rhetoric. Racist rhetoric has long had a powerful effect on a large minority of American voters. Sadly, racist rhetoric sometimes wins elections. Many Black people in the United States of America have heard things like what Donald Trump said, or worse. Trump’s only purpose was to give offense. Why argue with him? Argument wasn’t his point. Harris exposed Trump’s outrageous comment for what it was. She was brief. She said plenty. She said enough.

by William D. Harpine  

___________

Historical Note: Americans have long labeled one another by their ethnicity. During the slave era, slave states wrote laws to ensure that anyone with Black ancestors, especially on the maternal line, would legally be counted as 100% Black. Black people could accordingly be deprived of basic civil rights and were typically subject to slavery by birth. So, a person with one Black grandmother (or even one Black great-grandmother) was legally Black and, often, legally enslavable. That was economically handy, at least from the enslavers’ viewpoint. Slavery is gone, but racist traditions continue to spread their vileness from sea to shining sea. Inevitably, the racist cause continues to categorize certain people as Black, or Latina/o, or Asian, or whatever label or category currently arouses their ire. In the Jim Crow era, it was vital to know whether a person was Black, because Black people could legally be discriminated against. Such are the roots from which Trump’s brazen comment arose.

Indeed, by the late 1800s, many Black communities preferred the term “Afro-American.” Bizarrely, more than 100 years later, racists continue to think that “Afro-American” or “African-American” are new and confusing linguistic inventions. I published a 2010 article in the Howard Journal of Communication that offers examples of terminology preferred by historical Afro-American journalists. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above and scroll to the article about “African American Rhetoric of Greeting During McKinley’s 1896 Front Porch Campaign.” I also briefly cite the terminology briefly in my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page. (Now in paperback! Also available for checkout in many large research libraries.)

Copyright  © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: official White House photo, public domain

Pete Buttigieg Called for Uplifting Politics. Donald Trump Disagreed.

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


Pete Buttigieg Asked the United States to Choose Dignity

Pete Buttigieg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alas, not everyone agrees.

Donald Trump Boasted about the Dark Side

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

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

A Contrast: Two Political Styles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by William D. Harpine

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

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

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

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