Biden's August 31, 2021 Speech about Afghanistan: Did He Reset the Agenda? Maybe Not

Joe Biden, White House Photo

President Joe Biden’s August 31, 2021 speech defending the withdrawal of United States military forces from Afghanistan hit the right points as he tried to reset the public agenda. Although Biden gave a good speech, the press continues to flail at him and his public support seems to have dropped. What did he do right in this speech? What did he do wrong? What are his long-term rhetorical prospects? How can he reset the agenda? 

My response: Biden said the right things, but a bit too late, a bit too defensively, and, well, just not enough. That is, he is not controlling the public agenda.

When they wrote about public speaking, the ancient Greek writers talked about timeliness. A speaker must speak at the right time. The right time for Biden’s speech, unfortunately, was a couple weeks earlier. August 31 was the right time for his sixth or seventh speech about the withdrawal.


What Did Biden’s Speech Do Right?

To start, let’s look at the President’s masterful introduction:

“Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan — the longest war in American history.

“We completed one of the biggest airlifts in history, with more than 120,000 people evacuated to safety. That number is more than double what most experts thought were possible. No nation — no nation has ever done anything like it in all of history. Only the United States had the capacity and the will and the ability to do it, and we did it today.

“The extraordinary success of this mission was due to the incredible skill, bravery, and selfless courage of the United States military and our diplomats and intelligence professionals.”

Let us think about what Biden (and his speechwriting team) did right in that introduction. First, he talked about the end of the war, noting how long it was. He phrased that as an accomplishment, not a defeat. Second, in the face of relentless criticism of the supposedly chaotic airlift, he noted that 120,000 people were evacuated, and that the number was more than twice what anyone had predicted or promised. That’s a success, and he mentioned right away. Third, he shared the credit, thanking the military, intelligence, and diplomatic people who made the evacuation possible. What Biden did right: he hit his main point sharply and clearly, right away.

Continuing the speech, Biden defended the American response, insisting that the United States was prepared for the collapse of the Afghan government:

“But I still instructed our national security team to prepare for every eventuality — even that one. And that’s what we did.

“So, we were ready when the Afghan Security Forces — after two decades of fighting for their country and losing thousands of their own — did not hold on as long as anyone expected.”

Next, refuting another criticism made against his policies, Biden discussed the small number of Americans who had not yet been evacuated. He pointed out that most of them had dual citizenship in Afghanistan and the United States, and that they had been reluctant to evacuate earlier. This deflected blame from people who attacked him for not getting those people out of the country.

“Now we believe that about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave. Most of those who remain are dual citizens, long-time residents who had earlier decided to stay because of their family roots in Afghanistan.”

Continuing, Biden proceeded to give his listeners an excellent soundbite. News reporters tend to focus on what seems newsworthy, rather than what is important. Short, pithy phrases get quoted:

“I was not going to extend this forever war, and I was not extending a forever exit.”

That was a short pithy, quotable sentence. Good for Biden.


Did the Speech Make Any Rhetorical Mistakes? Oh, Yes

At the end, however, Biden did get a little bit too defensive. To defend his policies, Biden had two reasonable choices. He could have told people that he was making the right decision. Or he could have said that it was the wrong decision, but it was Trump’s fault. It doesn’t make much sense to argue both. Yet, that is what he did:

“The fact is: Everything had changed. My predecessor had made a deal with the Taliban. When I came into office, we faced a deadline — May 1. The Taliban onslaught was coming.”

That was probably true, but Biden failed to demonstrate strength. If the withdrawal is right, Biden should say so. If it is wrong, but Trump’s fault, the public may wonder why Biden didn’t fix the problem. After all, we think that presidents have limitless power, do we not? And the withdrawal can't be both right and wrong. 

 
Was the Speech Timely?

Timing is everything in rhetoric. The public has been inundated with images of smoke and explosions, screaming people, and robed, bearded warriors swarming around Kabul. The President’s critics had, for days, attacked his every real and perceived mistake, whether large or small.

On the one hand, yes, the president’s #1 job is to manage things, not to justify them. I am sure that Biden has been working overtime to oversee the military, intelligence, and diplomatic agencies. That’s important. On the other hand, part of the President’s job in a constitutional republic is to communicate with the public. People need to know what’s going on. Even if the public does not understand the situation, they want to feel confident that somebody is at the helm. This speech, given a week earlier, could have accomplished that. But it was too late. With images of catastrophe flooding the television, the speech was no longer enough to restore public confidence.

In other words, if Biden had given this speech a week or so earlier, the message could have been: “Here is what we plan to do and why it is right.”

However, with this speech given near the evacuation’s end, the message was more like: “I know it looks like I messed up, but I really didn’t.”

That is, the words would have been much the same a week or two ago, but the public would have received a different message. And, indeed, the press did call Biden’s speech defensive. (Strangely enough, Tucker Carlson, who is usually one of Biden’s harshest critics, praised Biden for withdrawing from Afghanistan.)


Is It Too Late? Can President Biden Recover?

Let us leave it to the historians to judge whether Biden made right or wrong decisions about Afghanistan. I suspect they will be far more charitable than today’s news reporters, but time will tell. So far, the press seems more interested in what the Afghanistan withdrawal means for upcoming elections than they do about the withdrawal itself. News reporters today say little about substance. The President – any president – needs to refocus their attention.

The history of presidential rhetoric suggests two courses that Biden could take to recover in the public’s perceptions. First, he could give many more speeches on the same theme. That would keep his agenda on the public’s mind. When President William McKinley wanted to sell the unpopular peace treaty that followed the Spanish-American war, he took an extensive railroad speaking tour across the South – the region where he faced the greatest opposition. He traveled with a collection of Confederate war heroes, and took time to honor the Confederate war dead. McKinley’s speaking tour did much to defuse the South’s hatred of him and somewhat moderated their opposition to the treaty. Now, the pandemic makes a railroad (or airplane) tour impractical today, but Biden could surely reach out more to the public – and reach out more to his political opponents – to sell his argument, over and over. Public support does not come automatically. Presidents need to work for it. Sadly, having good policies is not enough. The President needs to set the public agenda. The President surely cannot stay quiet for days on end while the press sets the agenda.

Second, Biden could give many speeches about his administration’s other accomplishments. That would place his presidency in context. Yes, Biden does speak about his successes. However, he is not pounding away about them. A president is not just an administrator. The president commands the bully pulpit. The president needs to use the bully pulpit – over, over, and over. As a best-selling novelist said, once is never enough.

When a president excels at policymaking – like Biden, like Obama, like Reagan, like Clinton, like Franklin Roosevelt – the president must sell the policies. Roosevelt, Reagan, and Clinton understood that. FDR never let the press control the agenda about Pearl Harbor. Biden seems to be getting the idea slowly.

Biden’s speech was a good start. It was wise that he gave it. He needs to give many more speeches like this. If you are as good a speaker as Abraham Lincoln, you can give a handful of speeches and succeed. If you’re a mere mortal, like all other presidents, you need quantity as well as quality. So, Biden needed to give this speech at least a week earlier – to show that he was on top of things. He needs to give many more speeches like this one. And he can’t be so defensive – if the buck stops in the Oval Office, well, that’s where the buck needs to stop.

__________________________________________________

More: Biden's Speech About the Kabul Bombing

More: Biden Uses the Bully Pulpit

More: Franklin Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Speech

__________________________________________________

Research Note: Chapter 9 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign talks about timeliness in public speaking. The ancient Greek writers called this "kairos." Now available in paperback, this book can also be found in most university libraries. I talked about McKinley’s speaking tours in "William McKinley and the Emergence of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency." I also discussed McKinley’s railroad tour speeches in an unpublished convention paper; you can read it here. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above to see more links.

P.S. About the Pearl Harbor meme: yes, I know that Pearl Harbor and Washington are not in the same time zone. Call it artistic license.

The President and the Bully Pulpit: Biden’s Latest Speech Pushed Infrastructure

While American cars fall into potholes big enough to swallow the state of Rhode Island, families from Texas to California sit huddled together waiting for electricity from dead or overstrained power grids to be restored, and safe drinking water is hauled to school children in Michigan, Congress continues to argue about whether the United States even needs an infrastructure bill.

So, President Joe Biden’s White House speech yesterday reached out to the public about the infrastructure bill. The bill is slowly advancing through Congress. Since Congress hasn’t gotten much done yet, Biden used his prestige and ability to command attention and sell his proposal to the public.

Why the public push? The United States Constitution, Article II, sharply limits the President’s power. Article I gives most government power to Congress. The President’s biggest power is that he can command public attention. Theodore Roosevelt called this the “bully pulpit.” Starting with William McKinley, presidents have spoken directly to the public, bypassing Congress, to persuade the people. Wanting to get reelected, members of Congress often respond to public opinion.


First, an excuse to give a speech

Biden boasted about a minor accomplishment, which is that the infrastructure bill would probably pass a procedural vote the next day. That gave Biden an excuse to give a speech:

“Yesterday, the United States Senate took the additional step toward passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It’s a bill that would end years of gridlock in Washington, and create millions of good-paying jobs, and put America on a new path to win the race for the economy in the 21st century.”

Packed in that simple introduction, Biden told us that the bill had some Republican support, that passing it would end gridlock and show that Washington can work. He also emphasized that it would bring economic benefits.


Second, informing the public

Biden’s next step was to list the bill’s basic provisions:

“A historic investment in roads and rail, in transit and bridges, in clean energy and clean water. It will enable us to not only build back, but build back better than before the economic crisis hit.”

That sounds simple, but it’s important. The news media have done a terrible job of telling the public what the bill contains. They have been reporting the congressional deliberations like a NASCAR race, focusing only on which side seems to be ahead at the moment. The public, however, needs information. Biden didn’t give details, but he pointed out that the bill covers transportation, energy, and water. The public usually likes things like that.


Third, reaching out to his adversaries

Biden next praised his opponents in Congress. Presumably demonstrating that gridlock was being overcome, Biden took time to “thank the bipartisan group of senators.” He praised them for their efforts. Interestingly, he also thanked them “for raising their ideas and concerns with me and Vice President Harris and members of our cabinet.” That was a tactful way to put a positive spin on the internal debates. I can only imagine how heated those “ideas and concerns” must have been. In any case, he stressed unity, not division. 


Fourth, appealing to conservatives and liberals

To overcome those “ideas and concerns,” Biden sought to appeal to a wide range of attitudes. Conservatives and liberals both need to support the bill. Accordingly, Biden looked toward the past and future alike:

“As we did with the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway System, we’ll soon, once again, transform America and propel us into the future.”

The transcontinental railroad and the interstate highways were major infrastructure programs of the past. Anyone who remembers high school history knows how they transformed the United States.  Mentioning them reminded conservatives that the United States has a long history of infrastructure spending. Saying that the bill would “transform America and propel us into the future” would appeal to more liberal voters.

Biden then rambled off to talk about other issues, including economic growth and the coronavirus.

Reaching out to the public

The four points that Biden made about the infrastructure bill were simple and straightforward. He employed no flights of fancy language. His goal was to show that he was pushing the bill while working together with Congress.

During the coronavirus epidemic, President Biden is giving few speeches on the road. That doesn’t matter as much as one might think. The magic of broadcasting and the Internet can carry his message across the land. Many cable networks and Internet sites broadcast his speech live. It even popped up on Internet-connected televisions. In a combined effort, Biden's Secretary of Transportation also gave a major infrastructure speech the same day, although he obviously commands less attention than the President. 

Also, the news media reported Biden's speech. For example, Lisa Mascaro of the Associated Press noted yesterday that “The president’s note of encouragement offers a reset for lawmakers after frustrations mounted and tempers flared overnight as the Senate stalled out, unable to expedite the package to completion.” Similarly, reaching a more conservative audience, Fox Business reported that “President Biden touted the bipartisan infrastructure deal and job growth in a speech Friday following the release of a robust July jobs report, while also renewing the push for Americans to get vaccinated against COVID-19.” Since most people get political information secondhand – this has been true for centuries – news reports like those gave Biden a secondary audience for his speech. That’s the bully pulpit at work.

________________

Earlier: Trump's 2018 Calm, Rational Infrastructure Meeting

Earlier: George W. Bush and the American Vision

Earlier: Biden's Delta Variant Speech

________________

Conclusion

The president is not a dictator. The Constitution limits Biden's power. The Constitution does not, however, limit the people’s power. If Biden can persuade the people, members of Congress will fall into place like the sheep they are. One speech, of course, will not be enough, William McKinley gave dozens of speeches about the ratification of the 1899 Treaty of Paris. Let us keep our ears open: is Biden going to push infrastructure with the vigor it will require? So far, it looks as if he will. By reaching out to the public in speeches like this, Biden is on the right track. If he continues to push his agenda to the public, the infrastructure bill might struggle its way through Congress.

________________

P.S.: When I was a young man, infrastructure bills passed automatically. Hordes of lobbyists used to descend on Congress to hawk highway projects, public waterways, public drinking water and waste disposal, and so forth. More recently, unfortunately, hardened antigovernment attitudes have made it difficult for Congress to pass urgently-needed legislation. Thus, the need for Biden's speech. 

P.P.S. Biden wore a tan suit during his presentation. Maybe that was because of the hot Washington summer. Or was he mocking conservatives who once made fun of Barack Obama’s tan suit? Nonverbal communication, including clothing, makes a difference.

P.P.P.S. Although most media outlets have done a terrible job of reporting about the infrastructure legislation, the liberal website Vox gives a nice rundown of the bill’s major provisions.

Research note: In his book The Rhetorical Presidency Jeffrey Tulis explains how presidents back to Theodore Roosevelt bypassed Congress to speak directly to the public. Professor Melvin Laracey shows that presidents as far back as Abraham Lincoln found ways to reach out to the public about legislation.

For my own writings about President William McKinley’s innovative speaking career, click on William D. Harpine’s publications above.

Image: White House YouTube channel