John F. Kennedy's 1960 Labor Day Speech

John F. Kennedy

“American labor has insisted upon, and won, the highest wages and best working conditions in the world.” 

So said future president John F. Kennedy on Labor Day in 1960, as he launched his successful campaign for president. Most Labor Day speeches are political, for the rights of workers raise political questions. John Kennedy transcended the nickel and dollar economic issues, which were important enough in themselves, and insisted that only organized labor could protect the United States of America’s democratic form of government.

In this speech, pointedly delivered at Cadillac Square in Detroit, home of the motor vehicle industry and its unionized workers, John Kennedy called the Dwight Eisenhower administration anti-labor. President Eisenhower was not running for reelection, but the Republican Party had nominated Eisenhower’s vice president, Richard Nixon, to be their candidate.

Blaming economic downturns on the administration, Kennedy asked his pro-labor crowd to separate pomposity from economic troubles:

“But not even the rose-colored glasses monotonously peddled by the present administration with Madison Avenue slogans can hide the problems. There have been two recessions within 7 years, and there are economists who believe a third is coming.”

Then, building to his theme, John Kennedy insisted that the labor union movement protected the United States from dictatorial rule. The labor union movement

Cadillac Square in 2022

protected, he said, the rights of working people:

“Collective bargaining has always been the bedrock of the American labor movement. I hope that you will continue to anchor your movement to this foundation. Free collective bargaining is good for the entire Nation. In my view, it is the only alternative to State regulation of wages and prices–a path which leads far down the grim road of totalitarianism.”

That slippery slope may seem overstated, but Kennedy, the future president, insisted that collective bargaining by labor unions protected, not only the United States’ economy, but, indeed, the entire political system. That is a bigger issue indeed:

“Those who would destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor - those who would cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the unorganized - do a disservice to the cause of democracy.”

Following a well-worn rhetorical path, speaking 75 years ago, Kennedy transcended the immediate issue. By calling organized labor the foundation of American government, Kennedy elevated the issue past the question of bargaining for wages.

Then, turning the tables on the Republicans, he complained about economic stagnation. He accused the Republicans of turning American prosperity into a political game:

“The administration has played politics with this issue–as well as with the minimum wage, health care for the aged, school construction, and housing programs.”

In his conclusion, on Labor Day in 1960, Kennedy raised his transcending argument to a spiritual level:

“In the crucial years ahead, organized labor will have much to contribute to the cause of democracy. May I say, then, God bless you in your efforts. May they be rewarded in the creation of a better world for all who seek freedom.”

We hear rhetoric like this all the time, although John Kennedy did an excellent job of it. Politicians say things like, We are not just talking about education! We are talking about the foundation of civilization, or We are not just talking about one church’s rights. No, we are talking about the entire First Amendment. And so forth.

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

On the one hand, transcending arguments boost a speech’s power. Transcending arguments give political policies an ideological context. On the other hand, transcending arguments obstruct our attempts to debate policy issues. We are no longer talking about whether we should raise the minimum wage, or whether a church has the right to violate health or building codes. Once the argument has transcended, we need to confront the ideology before we can discuss practical actions. When arguments transcend practical issues, the transcendence harms the already challenging need to discuss, debate, and compromise.

Nevertheless, was not John Kennedy prescient? In the years since, a series of conservative economic policies have, indeed, suppressed the minimum wage, limited workers’ rights, and reduced protections for collective bargaining. Kennedy stated a judgment between workers’ rights, compared with the rights of the people who conservatives call “job creators.” We are always tempted to say that our opponents are not merely wrong, but evil. However, when at that point, how do we work together? The political and economic conflict between workers and owners remains with us today. Are there any easy answers? I don’t see any.

Still, by staking himself to the labor movement, John Kennedy celebrated Labor Day in its inevitably political vein and began his successful march to the White House.

by William D. Harpine  

___________________

Personal Note:

Many thanks to the hard-working people whose labor makes America great. Fond memories of Grandfather Michael Feduska and Uncle Harry Waslo, who worked in Pennsylvania's steel mills, and Grandmother Anna Feduska, who raised chickens. Less fond memories of my own brief, long-ago employment collecting people's trash for $1.80 an hour. 

Happy Labor Day to all! 

Research Note:

Professor Suzanne McCorkle wrote brilliantly about transcending arguments in her 1980 article, “The Transcending Claim as a Strategy of Pseudo-Argument.” She posits that transcending arguments create the false impression that speakers have proven something when they have merely changed the issue, or that they have proven something more important than what they want their listeners to think. She makes a good point. Something to consider. Her article is behind a paywall, but a good library might find a copy for you.

Professor David Zarefsky offers a more positive view of transcendence in argument. His essay is a chapter in Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. If the book seems too expensive, you might find it in a large university library.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of John F. Kennedy: Official White House photo, public domain

Image of Bagley Fountain, Cadillac Square by w_lemay, Creative Commons License,

 via Wikimedia Commons 

Trump and the Maskless Crowd: Masks Are a Flag Issue for Conservative Voters

So, what is it with Donald Trump and wearing a mask? Trump and his supporters have made masks into a flag issue. The coronavirus is spiraling out of control, and CDC director Robert Redfield said that we could shut it down in two months if everybody would cover their mouths and noses with a facemask. More than 231,000 people have been confirmed to have died of coronavirus in the United States, more than any other nation. A Stanford University study estimates that Trump’s rallies have spread coronavirus to about 30,000 people, 700 of whom have died. Few people wear masks at Trump rallies. I wear a mask when I go in public, and, really, it’s not that big a deal.

Communication scholars John Waite Bowers and Donovan Ochs explain that a flag issue is not important in itself. Instead, radical speakers use flag issues to represent something that people care about. Similarly, people refuse to wear masks to show that they defy authority. Maskless gatherings have become symbols of partisan loyalty. Oddly, of course, Trump is head of the government and yet tells people not to wear masks. It’s not the mask that matters; it’s the defiance. People have trouble getting angry about abstract concepts, statistics, and health trends. But masks are a simple, slightly uncomfortable thing that people can understand. It’s hard to protest the pandemic. It’s easy to protest a mask.

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Made Ilhan Omar a Flag Individual

Let’s look at what Trump said in his Dubuque, Iowa rally speech yesterday. He spotted Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, a loyal supporter, in the crowd wearing a mask, and promptly mocked her:

“Donald Trump: Yep, by the way, you do have a great governor, you know that right? I don’t even know. I don’t even know if she’s here. Is she here? There she is. I can’t see her under all that stuff.

“Audience: (laughs).

“Donald Trump: Well, she’s definitely wearing a mask, I will say that.”

That, remember, is what he said about his friend. What about his opponents? Later in the long speech, Trump ridiculed masks:

“I see people that come in, they’re wrapped up in masks and, how you doing? Don’t touch. Don’t get close. Seriously, think of what China has done to the world. I had a group of people, not so long ago at a place, nice place. And they said, ‘President, President, could we say hello?’ They’re wrapped in masks and it’s terrible. And they said, you couldn’t hear him because the mask. One person had the world’s thickest mask I’ve ever seen. I mean, and then the scientists were there. That one’s no good. That one’s okay.” [italics added]

Look at what’s going on in that passage, and we can see how clever Trump’s persuasive methods really are. Of course public health measures are inconvenient and irritating: as Trump said, “Don’t touch. Don’t get close.” But it was China’s fault, Trump said, and therefore not his, that people need to deal with these public health mandates: “Seriously, think of what China has done to the world.” China put us in masks! Horrors!

Some Americans are indeed wearing masks. Let’s look at Trump’s complaint: “They’re wrapped up in masks and it’s terrible.” The masks, he said, were “terrible.” Not just inconvenient or uncomfortable, but terrible. He never said that the deaths were terrible, just the masks. Why, Trump complained, people at his meeting couldn’t even communicate because they were wearing masks: “And they said, you couldn’t hear him because the mask.” (Notice how Trump diverted responsibility: he himself wasn’t saying that the mask muffled people’s speech; no, “they said” that you couldn’t hear people talk.)

Trump’s comments were ridiculous – people can communicate perfectly well wearing a cloth mask – but he was pushing the buttons that he needed to push. He appealed to the defiant attitudes of people who don’t like being told what to do.

Many years ago, one of my children’s friends decided to dye her hair bright, fire-engine red. It looked awful, of course, but the hair showed that she was defying her parents. Her mother promptly took her to the beauty parlor to have the hair dyed any other color than red. The best the stylist could do was deep black. The child was defiant; the parent was defiant right back. I hope that Republican voters are more mature than a 15-year-old.

So, it’s not that the mask itself bothers Trump voters. Of course people can wear masks. Masks are not a big problem. Physicians, nurses, welders, and metalworkers wear masks all day. Many of them are Republicans. None of that mask-wearing causes a problem. A mask only becomes a problem when it becomes a flag issue – when to wear a mask symbolizes that you are submitting to authority. And so, going out in public, breathing, sneezing, and coughing on innocent people becomes a way to defy authority.

We live in a symbolic world. We salute the flag as a symbol of our country. My wedding ring is a symbol of my marriage. My neighbor’s Barefoot Nation flag symbolizes his nonconformist attitudes. Going maskless symbolizes defiance and willfulness.

Speaking as a citizen, not as a communication specialist, I do wish that conservatives could have latched onto a flag issue that didn’t have such deadly consequences. Some of my neighbors wave Trump flags that have curse words on them. That’s irritating, but it doesn’t hurt anything. Going around without a mask spreads disease. And people die.


Research note:

I talked about flag issues in chapter 4 of my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign. I presented an earlier version of the same analysis in an article, entitled “Bryan’s ‘A Cross of Gold’: The Rhetoric of Polarization at the 1896 Democratic Convention,” that I published years ago in the Quarterly Journal of Speech. As you can see, this type of radical speech has lurked around American politics for a long time. If you click the link for “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above, you can get more information about both of those publications, including a free almost-final copy of the article.

Bowers and Ochs’ important book, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, has been continuously revised and is still in print. It’s a good read, and anyone who thinks that Trump is not a radical should read this book. Trump uses almost every method of radical rhetoric that Bowers and Ochs describe. Radical organizer Saul Alinsky discusses similar persuasive methods in his book Rules for Radicals.

 

Image: Donald Trump, White House photo