The Solution to Climate Change Is in the Cities: President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award

Climate Change, US National Park Service

The world’s oceans are rising, island nations are flooding, and increasingly violent storms whip across the planet. Conspiracy theorists, including at least one United States Senator, ridicule global warming as a hoax. Still, more responsible public leaders are working more quietly to put the brakes on climate change.

Senator Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself

President Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, spoke virtually at the European Energy Award. Von der Leyen’s speech gave a brilliant insight: the solution to climate change lies in our cities. She changed the focus from what we should do to where we should do it.  Why didn’t we think of that earlier? Although von der Leyen talked about Europe, everything she said applies to the United States of America.

 

Von der Leyen Talked about Energy in European Cities

So, where do we fight against global warming? Von der Leyen said the fight is in the cities:

“The transition to an economy that is fully in harmony with our planet begins in each one of our cities. It begins with empowering people to choose public transport or bikes instead of private cars. It begins with smart systems for waste management. And with solid strategies to change the way we heat or cool our homes. Climate action is a responsibility that we all share.” [Italics added]

That’s also an important lesson for us in the United States: climate change policy – needs to start with cities. That’s where the most energy is used, and that’s where the solutions can best begin. Continuing, President von der Leyen pointed out what a large proportion of Europeans live in urban areas:

“Cities play a crucial role in this transition. 75 per cent of Europeans live in cities, and this is where 80 per cent of climate legislation is implemented. This is why it was so important to me to join you today.” [Italics added]

Those same lessons, however, apply to the United States as much as to Europe.


Yes, Most Americans Also Live in Cities

When President von der Leyen said that 75% of Europeans live in cities, my first reaction was, “Wow! That’s a lot!” The reader can imagine my surprise when I looked up the figures, learning that the United States, despite its wide prairies, massive deserts, and endless mountain ranges, is even more urbanized than Europe. And most energy use is urban. In the United States of America, we like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, a nation of rugged cattle wranglers, pioneer families, and small farmers, tied to the land and inspired by the Waltons of television fame. In real life, however, the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan estimates that 83% of people in the United States live in cities. That is a huge increase from the 64% who lived in urban areas in 1950.

Consider, for example, my home state of Texas. We have sprawling cattle ranches and oil fields. But Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas are among the nation’s 10 largest cities. (Austin ranks 11th!)


Can American Cities Help with Climate Change?

Can American cities make the same changes that von der Leyen sought in Europe? The challenges are great. Not only do we Americans love our automobiles, but few of our communities are set up for convenient bicycle or public transportation. For example, I live in Corpus Christi, a pleasant medium-sized city, but my neighborhood, like much of the city’s residential areas, looks like a typical suburban enclave. I live about 1½ miles from the nearest small supermarket, and there are no sidewalks most of the way. I need to walk about a mile just to get to a bus stop. Arriving at the bus stop, I would find that the bus runs only a few times a day. The nearest major shopping area, which features a Walmart and a large supermarket, is a 20-minute drive. Walk to Walmart? Not a chance. I’d need to cross a bridge with, you guessed it, no sidewalk and no bike lane. Rail transit? None. If I want to leave my neighborhood, I need to drive. This may largely be political: the United States’ political system underrepresents cities.

Of course, people who live in the countryside don’t want city voters to overwhelm them. William Jennings Bryan pointed out in his 1896 “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896 that the American economy depended on farms. We still need farms, ranches, mines, and outdoor recreation. At the same time, however, neither the economy nor political realities are bringing sustainable energy to the cities.

William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold”

So, yes, let’s think about where to work on climate change. If most people live in cities – and we do – can’t cities find ways to use less energy? Of course they can. Can our political and economic system adjust to an urban nation? An urban world?


Can We Work Together?

President von der Leyen said that we need to work together in that urban world. Can we get better energy policies? Von der Leyen sounded optimistic:

“In recent months, I saw so many positive efforts in cities across Europe. I hopped on a new hydrogen-fueled bus in Riga, Latvia. I learned about energy efficient social housing in Luxembourg. And I saw the plans to create new car-free areas in Malta. This transition is an opportunity to make our cities climate neutral and more livable.”

Yet, she cautioned that all of us need to take responsibility to deal with climate change. We need to live in the world the way it is today, not the way it was in the past. The science fiction movies of my youth often showed magnificent, futuristic cities with nearly-instant mass transit, livable spaces, and ultra-modern services. Guess what? That future could be now.

Can we, as President von der Leyen said, “make our cities climate neutral and more livable?” She concluded:

“The responsibility for climate action doesn’t just belong to world leaders. It is a choice for every community and every individual. The road to climate neutrality runs through our cities and regions.

“Thank you for your efforts. They are indispensable.”    

Indispensable indeed. What can ordinary people do? One thing, of course, is to vote for politicians who take climate change seriously. Public transportation, bike trails, and pedestrian-friendly city planning all require national and local government commitment. Homeowners who can afford it can install wind or solar power. A simple step is to combine driving trips to use less gasoline, and thus emit less carbon. The government of urban King County, Washington notes that recycling helps to reduce carbon emissions: “If you throw away even half the paper you use in a year instead of recycling it, you increase your climate pollution by the same amount as driving 526 miles.” Near my home, the Port of Corpus Christi is developing facilities to generate hydrogen fuel from renewable electricity sources. We need more of that kind of thing. When hydrogen burns, the only exhaust gas is pure steam.

 

Conclusion

President von der Leyen focused our attention on the vital but neglected side of climate change: green energy policies are, first and foremost, urban policies. Her point could apply to the United States even more exactly than to Europe. Her speech focused our attention, not so much on what to do, but where to do it. When we change the question that skillfully, we can often find better answers. So, can we do more in our cities to fight climate change?

True to form, the press paid little, if any, attention to the content of von der Leyen’s speech, preferring to focus on her wasteful use of private jets. No, she should not have flown on private jets, but her speech made powerful points. The press did not inform the public about those points. How can speakers better command press attention? Feel free to comment below.

______________

Earlier posts: 

Charles Michel’s Speech to the World Health Summit

Biden’s Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Climate Progress

Harrison Ford’s Climate Change Speech

Texas Proposition 3: A Constitutional Amendment Framed to Restrict Public Health Measures

My Texas "I Voted" Sticker

On November 12, 2021, Texas voters approved eight amendments to the state constitution, all cleverly worded to ensure that they would pass. Let’s look at one of them, which was Proposition 3 on the Texas ballot. Proposition 3 was framed to focus the voters’ attention on freedom of religion. Most people support religious freedom. It was cleverly not framed to focus on public health. If they think about it, many people also support public health. However, Proposition 3 was phrased so that voters would need to make a special effort to think in public health terms. Proposition 3 did not look like a persuasive message. But it was. The way it was phrased – the spin – had a powerful persuasive impact.

So, here is Proposition 3:

“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”

Proposition 3 could easily have been framed to focus on public health. It could have said (but did not): “The constitutional amendment to stop public health authorities from imposing reasonable, temporary restrictions on religious organizations if evidence shows they are spreading a deadly disease.” If it had been phrased that way, the amendment might have been defeated. 

Every time we say something, especially if we are trying to persuade people, we always frame it in a particular way. Framing is not an evil thing. It is always part of how we communicate. Yet, the way an argument is framed often persuades with more power than facts or evidence.

Proposition 3 was framed to evoke an emotional response about religious freedom. Erving Goffman called this kind of thing “spin.” Proposition 3 was phrased to arouse fear that the government was going to interfere with religion. It was not phrased to arouse our fear about catching a virus and gasping to death on a ventilator. That was a value choice by the people who wrote the proposition.

In a more general sense, we frame all kinds of things, controversial and non-controversial alike. For example, consider the Civil War. Do we really learn about the Civil War? Or do we call it the War Between the States, as I learned in Virginia schools in the 1960s? That’s a framing question. Before the Civil War, the southern states said that the issue was slavery. After the Civil War, they insisted that the real issue had been states’ rights. Which framing is correct? How do we respond to those competing frames? Just as an art frame sets off a picture and affects the viewer’s emotional response, so a rhetorical frame also affects the way people respond.

Any number of examples can show how framing changes how we understand issues. Suppose the TV news shows President Joe Biden stopping to chat with a small child. The news could frame the tender event in at least three different ways:

#1 President Joe Biden is a kind, compassionate man who cares about other people.

Or

#2 President Joe Biden might be a nice guy, but he’s weak.

Or

#3 President Joe Biden shows the strength that comes from wisdom.

Can you see how different people can perceive the same event differently? #1, #2, and #3 all refer to the same facts, and a voter could interpret Biden’s actions in any of those three ways.

Similarly, not long ago, I blogged about how conservatives often discuss coronavirus restrictions as being control measures, not public health provisions. That, again, is framing. Yes, coronavirus restrictions do, indeed, limit what we do. So there is an element of control. The coronavirus restrictions also save lives. A religious Texas summer camp infected 125 attendees. So, which is more important? Religious freedom, or health? Should we balance the two? Can we have both? When we put a frame around coronavirus restrictions, does that frame stress the control, or the public safety? Notice, however, that none of that framing even mentions facts or arguments. How many people are dying from the coronavirus? Do the restrictions save lives? Do the restrictions limit our ability to succeed? Once we have framed the issue of coronavirus restrictions, we see the facts, pro and con, in different lights – depending on our framing.

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

The framing of Proposition 3 was no accident. No, Proposition 3 arose because public health authorities sometimes restricted religious services during the pandemic’s height. Public health authorities believe that religious services often became super-spreader events. It’s no secret why that should happen. Dr. William Schaffner of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine explained why religious services often spread disease:

“The members know each other. They enjoy seeing each other. They hug, they kiss, and they spend a fair amount of prolonged time in close association.”

Dr. Eric Christopher Cioe-Pena contributes this comment:

“Sometimes people are not wearing masks when they speak or sing, and a lot of these churches are older and have poor ventilation.”

So, public health authorities do not necessarily want to interfere with religious freedom, but they do want to stop disease from spreading. At the same time, many religious organizations of many faiths resisted simple public health precautions. Churches displayed signs like “masks optional” and took it as a matter of pride when people stuffed the pews.

Indeed, the framing may have made more difference than the actual issues. Texas news organizations gave little information about the constitutional propositions. Probably, few people were aware in any real way of the pros and cons. Although I read the brief information on the League of Woman Voters website, most people probably just responded to the proposition's text.

Accordingly, people voted in favor of religious freedom. Proposition 3 passed. The final tally was 62% for and only 38% against. Turnout in this off-cycle election was only about 9%, so, like many American elections, it was decided as much by who didn’t vote as by who did vote.

So, the freedom of religion frame seemed to shape the result. I’ve said many times that the side that sets the agenda usually wins the debate. The people who wrote Proposition 3 set the agenda by what they did and did not emphasize. Proposition 3 was phrased to direct attention toward religious freedom. It did not direct attention toward public health.

And, so, the next time a pandemic hits the state of Texas, religious organizations will be free to spread fatal diseases to as many people as they please. Of course, when I phrase it that way, I’m not being neutral. In framing theory, neutrality is an illusion. I have my spin, and you have yours.

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Set the Agenda at the 2018 RNCC Fundraiser

And, yes, in case you are wondering, I voted “against” on Proposition 3. I’ve never seen anything in the Bible (or any other religious writing) that says, “Go forth and spread disease to all the nations.” But, then, there I go, spinning again.

Still, we frame things all the time. We all have perceptual frameworks that help us understand things. At the same time, to think critically, we need to understand our own frames and the frames that other people offer. That doesn’t mean that will ever be objective. We’re never objective. Nor does it mean that all perspectives are always equally valid. It means that we need to try to understand one another’s perspectives as best we can,


Earlier Post: Should Schools Reopen during the Pandemic? It Depends on How You Frame the Question


Research Note: Although framing theory dates back at least to the 1950s, most communication researchers refer to Erving Goffman’s 1974 explanation. Here is a good, easy-to-read explanation of framing theory. 

Of course, nowadays, years after Goffman wrote his book, the concept of “spin” is an everyday topic, especially in journalism. The point is that every message, certainly every persuasive message, is going to be framed. Issues will be spun in a particular way. There is no such thing as a "no spin zone." To be human is to spin. That isn’t always bad, but it’s something that we as listeners and readers need to notice. How is an issue framed? How could it be re-framed? Those are questions to ask. 

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

“Think not the bigotry of another is any excuse for your own,” said John Wesley in a sermon against bigotry. Wesley’s point is worth repeating. This is not just because he foreshadowed modern civil rights ideas, but also because his subtle logic deserves our attention today.

Wesley's sermon against bigotry must have sounded radical to Wesley’s 18th Century audience, just as I’m sure it still sounds radical today. Think, for example, about Republicans who expel any politician who admits the obvious truth that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, or progressive Democrats who are enraged that more moderate Democrats don’t automatically agree with every single one of their seemingly radical proposals. Think of the parents who rant incoherently during school board meetings because they do not want their children to learn about Martin Luther King, Jr. Bigotry tempts us every day.

Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Mountaintop in Memphis, Tennessee: A Speech for the Ages

If people of a different religious faith do good things, Wesley asked, is it not wrong to criticize or exclude them? On the one hand, Wesley spoke for what was (by the standards of his time) a degree of religious tolerance; on the other hand, as we will see, he fell short of his own ideals. So, let us remember what was good.

John Wesley, although ordained in the Church of England, is considered to be the founder of the Methodist Church. In this sermon against bigotry, it is enough, Wesley said, for someone to do something good. It is not necessary to belong to some favorite group. Group membership and official sanction are not prerequisites to goodness. Furthermore, it is not realistic, he insisted, to expect everyone to be good all the time.

As was standard practice among 18th-century Protestant preachers, Wesley based his sermon on a brief passage from the King James Bible, in this case, Mark 9:38-39. In the story, Jesus’ disciples condemn a man who is not in their group who was doing good deeds in Jesus’ name. Jesus responded that the man should not be stopped, but instead he should be allowed to continue his work:

“‘And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name: and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not.’ Mark 9:38, 39.” 

Wesley’s ensuing argument was that someone who does good things has earned acceptance, even respect, even if that person does not belong to your particular group. It is wrong to criticize people in the pursuit of doctrinal or ideological purity. For, Wesley insisted, a person’s group membership is not important. There is no reason, Wesley insisted, to stop someone from preaching just because that person does not belong to a particular church, or has not been licensed to preach by a particular bishop. Similarly, we could infer, people of whom we disapprove can nevertheless be doing good things. We can (and should) praise them for doing the good things even if they have not joined our group. If people have done some good things, we should praise those deeds and, perhaps, decline to dwell on what is wrong. We should not even reject the good deeds that bigots might do. That was a radical idea in the 1700’s, and it remains a radical idea today. And, so, here is how Wesley summed up his argument:

“Think not the bigotry of another is any excuse for your own. It is not impossible, that one who casts out devils himself, may yet forbid you so to do. You may observe, this is the very case mentioned in the text. The Apostles forbade another to do what they did themselves.”

Furthermore, Wesley even warned his audience to be careful before they condemned wicked deeds:

“But beware of retorting. It is not your part to return evil for evil. Another’s not observing the direction of our Lord, is no reason why you should neglect it. Nay, but let him have all the bigotry to himself. If he forbid you, do not you forbid him. Rather labour, and watch, and pray the more, to confirm your love toward him.”

Instead, Wesley urged his audience to look for ways to praise even those people who are doing evil:

“If he speak all manner of evil of you, speak all manner of good (that is true) of him. Imitate herein that glorious saying of a great man (O that he had always breathed the same spirit!), ‘Let Luther call me a hundred devils; I will still reverence him as a messenger of God.’”

Wesley was not perfect, any more than preachers today are perfect. And so, while preaching against bigotry, he sometimes fell victim to bigotry’s temptations. In the course of his sermon, he criticized what he said were brutal practices of Native Americans. I will not quote him – his comments were quite offensive – and it is unfortunate that he made no effort to verify the facts. Wesley’s sermon expressed a bit of bigotry toward non-Christians. Also, as the reader surely noticed, Wesley used “he” and “his” in a generic sense. That was standard practice in his time (and for centuries later), but such language does convey an implicit anti-female bias. So, he was as capable of bigotry as anyone else. I suppose that the Critical Race Theorists would say that some degree of bigotry lies within all of us.

So, what lessons can we draw? First, bigotry is nothing new. Second, even when bigotry was socially accepted, as it was in Wesley’s culture, good people have always been able to call it out. Third, even the most bigoted – or evil – people are capable of doing good things. Evil people can be praised when they do good things. Fourth, no one is perfect. For example, no Christian preacher can possibly uphold every one of his or her own principles. Wesley did not. So what? That doesn’t prove that the principles are wrong. It simply means that human weaknesses afflict all of us. Fifth, we should seek the good in other people. We should recognize people who do good things even if the people themselves offend us. Instead of excluding people who falsely claim to be members of our group, we should welcome them. We should encourage people who (metaphorically) cast out demons in our name. Even if they are not really in our group.

Wesley’s subtle logic distinguished between good deeds and bad people. He noted that bad people can do good things. He noted that silly rules should not stop good people from doing good things. He also noted, and this may be his most important point, that it is wrong to meet bigotry with bigotry. Steeped in Christian tradition, Wesley said that Christians are called to love not only each other, but also their worst enemies. He called his audience to show acceptance and tolerance toward everyone. That does not mean that people should give in to evil. Instead, it means that we do not fight evil by becoming evil ourselves. Wesley taught an important moral lesson, not only for his own time, but for ours.

______________

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees
____________

Research Note: Common practice in the 18th and 19th century was for prominent preachers to publish pamphlets or books of their sermons. The only known text of this sermon comes from a version that Wesley edited and published. Thus, the text could be more polished than what he actually delivered in church.

Never Give in: Words of Wisdom from Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill, August 1941

“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Such were the thoughts of Winston Churchill, a member of the Conservative Party who was serving as Prime Minster of the United Kingdom. He was speaking at Harrow, 80 years ago on today's date, October 29, 1941.  

People should, Churchill said, never submit to force and intimidation. At the same time, people should never sacrifice honor and good sense just because they are too stubborn to change. We should never give in to fear. Nor should we ever sacrifice honor, morality, or wisdom just because we are afraid. That was wisdom for Churchill's time, and it is wisdom for us today.

He said never give in to superior force. However, he also said to do what was right. To Churchill, doing the right thing was more important than doing the strong thing. The same should be true for us today. It is never right to give in to violence, bullying, or force. It is however, right to give in to the truth. 

The fall of 1941 brought World War II’s darkest days. The United States had not yet formally entered the war. The United Kingdom had fought back against terrible German air attacks during the Battle of Britain. The days, nevertheless, looked dark and frightening. Nazi Germany possessed, at the time, the most powerful, most technologically advanced military force the world had ever seen. Germany and its allies had invaded the Soviet Union, giving the United Kingdom a partial respite. Across Europe, German SS troops were butchering innocent civilians by tens of thousands at a time. They murdered Jews and the Rom people and enslaved countless Slavs. It was a terrible time.

Adolf Hitler's "Christian Nationalist" Speech 

Dina Pronicheva’s Holocause Testimony at Nuremberg

We face threats today. Not only does the world face armed enemies, but we struggle against the coronavirus epidemic. Should we give up and let it overrun us? Or should we bring the full weight of modern medical care and public health measures to bear against it? The Democrats face great challenges passing their Build Back Better agenda. If they feel it is the right thing, should they give up just because it is difficult? 

Yet, at the same time, the world tempts us to spew out lies, slanders, and conspiracy theories instead of facing our problems. Too many American Republican politicians today lack the honor to admit the obvious truth that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, defeating Donald Trump. Their stubbornness represents tenacity, yes, but it is foolish and unworthy tenacity. To lose graciously is still honorable. Likewise, anti-vaccine fanatics shout, “we will not comply,” and end up spreading a deadly disease. 

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

The Democrats' Build Back Better Agenda: Will Biden Use the Bully Pulpit?

Churchill’s point: never give in to threats or adversity, but stand up for what is honorable and sensible. That makes so much sense, but Churchill’s values differ greatly from what we often hear today. Too often, people say that they would rather be wrong than to change their minds. Churchill did not say to be stubborn just to be stubborn. When he said, “Never  give in. Never give in,” he meant to fight for what was right. 

Facing the far greater challenges of national survival against the Nazi onslaught, Churchill reminded us that the only things we should give in to are “honour and good sense.” Churchill’s idea was that we should not give into force. Indeed, we should not even give in to the perception that the other side has too much power: “Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” In big matters and small alike, he said, never give in. 

Churchill’s counterweight, however is that wise people balance strength against wisdom. Wise people never let ideology triumph over “good sense.” We should, he reminded his audience, submit to honor and good judgment. Even amidst the horrors of World War II, Churchill never put victory on a pedestal higher than those great virtues.

Churchill was not merely a politician who had mastered the art of wielding words like swords. No, he was not merely a master of words; he was a master of ideas. He knew never to give in or surrender to fear. For, after all, if we do let fear force us to give in to threats, we should also not let fear motivate us to do what is dishonorable or foolish. Wisdom for the ages.

Image: United States Navy History and Heritage Command

Charles Michel's Speech to the World Health Summit: Data, Global Cooperation, and Human Dignity

Coronavirus, CDC Image

Charles Michel, a Belgian politician who serves as President of the European Council, spoke yesterday, October 25, 2021, to the World Health Summit. The World Health Summit is meeting this week in a combined digital and live format, based this year in Berlin, Germany.

While much of the world, including not only Michel’s European Union, but also the United States of America, has degenerated into bizarre conspiracy theories and angry revolts against obviously-needed public health measures, Michel gave a calm, scientifically-based vision about the world-wide coronavirus epidemic. “Data is critical to our decision-making,” he insisted. Michel reminded the Summit that fact-based evidence is the key to defeating the coronavirus. He ignored the conspiracy theorists whose anti-public-health antics threatens to run the world’s progress right off its tracks. Instead, he looked at traditions that we often forget: sound international policy, fact-based reason, and world-wide human dignity.

Global Solutions
Michel’s first point was that the world needed “global governance for global solutions.” Many nations, including both the United States and his own nation of Belgium, sometimes fear globality. In contrast, Michel emphasized that the world’s nations need to work together to beat this terrible disease. He reminded the Summit of the disease’s horrifying toll. He pointed out how unprepared the world was to meet the challenge:

“COVID-19 has killed nearly five million people around the world. It also revealed that no country, not even the most developed, was prepared for such a pandemic. Despite the many predictions of scientists. The virus exposed the gaps in our national preparedness. But it has also exposed stark deficiencies in global governance. Information sharing is a clear example of that.”

World leaders don’t like to admit that they made mistakes, but only by facing our mistakes can we learn to do better. Continuing with his theme of data-driven policy, Michel wanted to see the nations share data about how viruses spread in which populations are most likely to succumb. The world needs to share data about treatments, and, he noted, “intensive international cooperation must play a critical role.” That is why Michel noted that “we must learn and implement new ways of working.”

“New ways of working?” In a world that resists change, Michel’s idea is more radical than it seems.

Michel warned that relying on individual nations or regions to control pandemics would never be enough: 

“In the European Union, health is mainly a national, or even sometimes a regional, competence. Yet early in the pandemic, we realized that information-sharing needed to be strengthened.” 

Again, he insisted on the need to share information – data.

Good Decision-Making  
Michel’s speech also covered what he called “the value of fact-based and objective decisions.” Europeans and Americans alike have been inundated in an astonishing flood of right-wing misinformation – outright lies – about the coronavirus and the necessary public health measures. Michel never mentioned the misinformation. Instead, he focused on the positive need for making decisions according to what is true.

_____________________

Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines
_____________________

Finally, Michel insisted on the liberalizing principle of “human dignity:”

“We are convinced that global challenges, like climate change, economic development or the fight against pandemics, require global solutions. We believe in a rules-based international order. We believe in universal values. We hope the international community will negotiate and agree on the future international treaty on pandemics.”

Throughout much of the world, including the United States, globalization is a hot-button topic that often leads to violent protests and insane conspiracy theories. The fact remains that the world is one big community. The world has always been a huge, interconnected community. People have depended on international travel and trade for thousands of years. Bronze Age people traded internationally. Marco Polo was a globalist. It is a fallacy to think that we can burrow into our own regions and ignore the rest of the world. 

Yet, with all his liberalizing ideas, Michel‘s concluding remark reminded his audience of an important tradition: the idea of world unity, embodied in the United Nations, which formed after the horrors of World War II:

“Let’s keep in mind the future of our children in the spirit of her predecessors, who signed the UN charter over 75 years ago.”

 

The Past and the Future
That last sentence rhetorically tied past and future together. We must think about our children’s future. We must, however, remember that our predecessors – people of the past – gave us wisdom that the world today should not forget. Michel reminded his audience, and the entire world, that we have traditions that are good, fine, and uplifting. For, we too often forget that collaboration is just as much a tradition as narrow-minded individualism.

Michel did not refute the conspiracy theorists, the anti-globalists, or the lunatic anti-mask, anti-vaccine crowd. Reason will never reach those people anyway. Michel’s calm, thoughtful speech, emphasized information, global cooperation, and human dignity. Why any of that should be controversial, I have no idea. Michel conveyed lessons that the world needs to hear, and I wish that his wonderful speech would receive the same amount of attention that the press devotes to rioters, uninformed people, irresponsible politicians, and conspiracy theorists. For, indeed, data-based policy and international cooperation are all that stop the world from tumbling into chaos.

______________

WHO's Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Spoke for Public Health in a Positive Way During His Coronavirus Briefing

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Sought Common Ground in the Fight against the Coronavirus

The Build Back Better Agenda: Will Democrats Use the Bully Pulpit? Or Not? William McKinley Shows the Way

Joe Biden

A CBS/YouGov opinion poll released yesterday (October 10, 2021) revealed that the majority of Americans have no idea, or only a vague idea, of what the Democratic Party’s Build Back Better legislative bill even contains. At this point, the bill’s passage is in doubt. If it does pass, it will probably be much-reduced.

No surprise there! Why should the public know anything about the bill? Who is telling them? Pretty much no one. If the Democrats want this legislation to pass, they need to sell it.

We’re hearing all kinds of stuff in the press, and from Democratic speakers, arguing about how big the bill should be. Should it be $3.5 trillion? Or some smaller amount? Should it be paid for by taxing the rich?

Get a clue! Voters care about none of that. They want to know what the bill is doing. They want to know what it might do for them. And, in fact, all of the bill’s provisions – and I mean all of them – are polling very well. The public likes the idea of shoring up Medicare, expanding broadband access in rural areas, improving dental and vision care, and upgrading the nation’s rotting, crumbling roads and highways. Polls show that voters even support the climate provisions. Who would have guessed?

But there is a big disconnect. The public isn’t going to support the legislation unless they realize that it contains bunches of things that they like.

Much is made of the reluctance of senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. They both come from relatively conservative states. The fact remains that their states would benefit tremendously from this legislation. So why are they stalling? Have they been bribed by big business? Are they playing both sides? Who knows? Who cares? Forget about all of that. Members of Congress are simple, uncomplicated creatures who do whatever it takes to get reelected. Convince the voters of Arizona and West Virginia that they want the Build Back Better agenda, and Sinema and Manchin will magically agree and vote accordingly. Bingo.

There is precedent for this. We know how presidents can sell an unpopular agenda. More than a century ago, when President William McKinley wanted an uncooperative Senate to ratify the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-American War and annexed the Philippine Islands, he did what any smart modern president would do. He went on speaking tours.

William McKinley

These were not just any speaking tours. Among other parts of the country, McKinley traveled by train to the South, where opposition to his policies was strongest, where he gave speech after speech. He traveled in the company of the ever-popular Confederate General Joseph Wheeler, who had rejoined the United States Army and was the hero of the Spanish-American War. Wheeler was a Democrat, while McKinley was a Republican, and they had fought on opposite sides of the Civil War. McKinley’s speeches were vague, carefully constructed to offend as few people as possible. He praised the South. He promised to care for the graves of Confederate soldiers. He talked about trade and prosperity. He exalted the “protecting folds” of the American flag, which would spread out to give prosperity and justice to the Filipino people. He praised soldiers and sailors of the South and North alike for the quick, popular victory over Spain. In other words, he went directly to his opponents’ territory and reached out concerning issues they cared about.

And, guess what? It worked. The Senate ratified the treaty by the required two-thirds vote. The United States quickly annexed the Philippine Islands. Now, unfortunately, the annexation didn’t go quite as well as McKinley had expected. Filipinos immediately launched a bitter war of independence in an effort to drive the Americans out of their country. The fact remains that McKinley had a policy, the policy was not attractive, and yet he convinced the public to support it. Once the public was on his side, the senators meekly dropped into place.

Biden Speaking about Build Back Better

Let us come back to 2021. If Democrats want to sell their agenda, they need to reach out. They need to reach out much more aggressively than they have so far. President Joe Biden has given some speeches about the proposal. Those speeches were fine. He has not, however, given enough speeches. He needs to tell people about his agenda every day. He needs to reach out to different audiences – every day. Leading Democrats need to do more than to offer a few mumbled comments on the Sunday morning TV shows. They need to hold town halls, one after the other, and explain the benefits that their agenda will bring to people. Instead of sniping at one another on Twitter, they need to use their social media to tell people what the bill contains and how it will help them.
________________

More Information: Biden and the Bully Pulpit: Biden’s Infrastructure Speech
________________

And that is not enough. The Democrats need to go on Fox News. Democrats today act as if Fox News is poison. Why? The Fox News audience is exactly the people they need to reach. They need to get on talk radio. If they want to talk about the United States as one unified country, they need to reach out to people who disagree with them. Remember, McKinley was a decorated combat veteran of the Civil War. (Or, as Southerners of the time sometimes said, the War of Northern Aggression.) He didn’t expect to get a lot of support from the South. He did not even expect them to like him. He did know, however, that he needed to reach out to the South to moderate their opposition to his proposals, to show that he cared about them, and to solicit unity. He spoke to a friendly audience at a southern African-American University. He spoke to the Georgia legislature. Making a appearance on Fox News can’t be as hard as what McKinley did.

Theodore Roosevelt called the presidency the “bully pulpit.” And he was right. Political scientist Jeffrey Tulis said that modern presidents routinely bypass Congress to sell their ideas directly to the public. That is what the Democrats need to do.

People often talk about how former President Donald Trump is always in the news. Pundits say that he sucks the oxygen right out of the room. They are right. Trump controls the agenda. He controls the agenda by holding rallies, making media appearances, and generally making a nuisance of himself. You might not like him, but you can’t ignore him. President Biden is getting too easy to ignore. The Democrats are too easy to ignore. They need to climb on the bully pulpit and commandeer their share of the media’s oxygen. That does not mean that they need to say stupid things like what Trump says. It means that they need to tell people about their agenda – over, over, and over. They need to tell people why the agenda is needed and how it will work. That is why we have the bully pulpit. As I have said many times, the side that sets the agenda will win the debate.

Throughout his career, McKinley emphasized unity in the face of disorder and compassion in the face of strife. I don’t see any reason that it wouldn’t work today. The way to overcome polarization is with unity.

So, are the Democrats giving good speeches? Or bad speeches? That’s not the point. The point is that they are not giving enough speeches. They need to inform the public. They need to set the agenda.

---

________________

Further Reading: Rhetoric in William McKinley's 1898-1899 Speaking Tours

________________

Research Note: I wrote about McKinley’s speaking tours in a chapter that I wrote for Before the Rhetorical Presidency. Copies are available in most large libraries, and, of course, it is available for sale in major bookstores. I also wrote an unpublished paper about McKinley’s speaking techniques during his tour to sell the treaty; link above. Click on William D. Harpine’s Publications above to see more of my writing about McKinley’s speeches.

Interested readers might want to look at my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page, about public speaking in the 1896 presidential campaign between McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. There are chapters about McKinley’s use of such themes as identification and unity. The book is now available in paperback, and, of course, many university libraries have it on their shelves. 

Mel Laracey’s excellent book, Presidents and the People: The Partisan Story of Going Public, includes an insightful discussion of McKinley and the rhetorical presidency.

P.S. If you want to bypass the politicians and read a summary of Build Back Better, here is a simple explanation. 

Image of Biden: White House photo. Image of McKinley: Library of Congress. Image of Biden's speech: White House YouTube channel. 

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

Coronavirus, CDC Image

Right-wing firebrand Ryan Fournier recently complained on his Twitter account that the government uses the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to control people. He gave no support to public health. Instead, he invited his followers to fear the power that big government was exerting on their lives: 

“Los Angeles will soon require a VACCINE PASSPORT if you want to enter a:
Bar
Restaurant
Nail salon
Gym
Stadium
Mall
Museum
This is no longer about the pandemic. It's about control!”

Anyone who follows conservative anti-vaccine and anti-mask rhetoric hears the same phrase, over and over: “It’s about control.” It’s not about public health, they imply, it’s about control. Do they have a good argument to prove that? Of course not. Instead, they mindlessly repeat “It’s about control” over – and over – and over.

Indeed, what conservative listeners hear all day from their favorite media and elected officials is: “It’s about control.” “It’s about control.” “It’s about control.” The same phrase, pounded into their brains with the force of jackhammers.

Let’s start with two premises:

1. The coronavirus vaccines and face masks have been proven to be quite safe and effective.
2. For some reason, American conservatives have taken the virus’ side in this pandemic.

Since the substantive arguments against the vaccines and masks are absurd, American conservatives rely, instead, on two simple persuasive techniques: repetition and misdirection. The same methods that stage magicians use to fool their audiences. 

________________________

What are some of the absurd arguments against public health? Prominent conservatives have claimed that the vaccines magnetize a person’s body to the extent that brass keys (which, of course, are not magnetic) will stick to a person’s body. They allege that tiny octopus-like creatures are injected along with the vaccines. (No, I didn’t make that up). Or that the vaccines contain microchips. Or that they alter a person’s DNA. Or that face masks like the ones surgeons wear all day trap carbon dioxide. Only the most deluded people will believe such nonsense. Although there turn out to be more deluded people than I would have expected, conservatives need to reach a larger audience. Conservatives turn to repetition and misdirection because their substantive arguments are ridiculous. They have no other choice.

________________________

Repetition

The point is that, whatever conservatives lack in content, they make up in repetition. In a massive six-month study, Media Matters found that Fox News hosts, guests, and announcers attacked coronavirus vaccines almost every day. Fox News offered a wide range of bizarre accusations, one of which is the argument that vaccines are about government control, not about health. Fox News also routinely falsely claimed that vaccines were killing people, that they were ineffective, or that the coronavirus can be cured by quack medicine treatments.

Here was my moment of epiphany. The other day, wanting to stay alert while driving, I turned on a local talk radio station. Hour after hour (it dawned on me) talk radio hosts rant about the vaccines and masks, say that the masks and vaccines are all about control, and tell people that they are dangerous. Then, of course, public health misinformation is also all over Facebook and any number of right-wing websites. Rarely do conservatives present any evidence. Even less often do they present evidence that is remotely credible. That’s not the point. The point is that they repeat wild accusations constantly. Fox News and talk radio addicts expose themselves to a constant run, an endless, frantic flood, of misinformation. Absurd lies. Obvious nonsense. And why do they believe the nonsense? The answer: repetition. It’s not that the information is good, or even that it makes sense, but that many conservatives hear the misinformation all day and all night. Televisions in military bases and airports blare Fox News constantly to captive audiences. Many people subscribe to cable just so they can be misinformed.

Worse, the exact phrase – “It’s about control” – crops up over and over. Listeners’ minds are programmed to believe that “It’s all about control.” It’s not just that the false idea is repeated, but that the exact words are repeated in a direct, simple, easy-to-remember formula. Let’s take a look.


“It’s About Control”
There are many examples of the standard formula. Pedro Gonzalez, appearing as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, complained about military coronavirus vaccination mandates:

“The answer to your question is that this isn’t about public safety, it’s about control.”

Likewise, Tennessee congressional representative Diana Harshbarger proudly posted on her website that she opposed President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates:

“‘The recent vaccine mandates by President Biden are nothing short of authoritarian government overreach that infringe upon our American civil liberties,’ said Congresswoman Harshbarger. ‘The Biden administration has revealed that this isn’t about COVID-19, it’s about control.’” Americans have rightfully lost their trust in President Biden to provide accurate guidance when it comes to COVID-19 as he continues to put politics over science.’”

Agreeing that it is all about control, actor Kevin Sorbo, who played Hercules on television, posted on his social media that:

“It’s not about a mask, it’s about CONTROL.” 

Similarly, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted that:

“But gov’t shouldn’t mandate those masks or masks for kids. It’s about control and I’m fighting back.”

Also concerned about government control, preacher Dr. Jimmy DeYoung, Sr. asked a guest on his talk radio show:

“Could this vaccine be another form of government control of the people?”

Not long after, Dr. DeYoung became one of several unvaccinated right-wing, anti-public health radio hosts to die from a coronavirus infection. It seems that it is dangerous to believe your own propaganda. Who would have guessed? 

_____________________

Further Reading: Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Fantasy of Perfect Vaccines

Elaine's Post: We Must Have Mask and Vaccine Mandates to Protect Children

Elaine's Post: Why Do People Fear the COVID-19 Vaccine More Than They Fear COVID-19? The Perception of Control  - Elaine discuses the psychology of vaccine hesitancy.
_____________________

And the Repetition Filters on Down –
Does this constant repetition about “control” have an effect? Alas, it does. Perfectly ordinary people find themselves echoing the same phrase: that public health measures are all about control. They even repeat the exact words – “It’s about control” – over and over, like tape recorders, like automata who are programmed to repeat a favorite phrase while never thinking about what it means. 

For example, refusing to take a mandated vaccine, substitute teacher April Johnson wrote to a local newspaper:

“But it’s not really about science or being ‘safe.’ It’s about control. Our state government doesn’t think we, the people who elected them, are capable of making our own choices. They are using fear tactics to steal away personal liberty, bit by bit. But I won’t comply. I won’t play the game.”

Aha! She repeated the magic phase, “It’s  about control.” Of course, any number of demonstrators are waving signs like the one in a recent Boulder protest, which said: 

“It’s not about the virus. It’s about control.”

Similarly, Shannon Long, a speaker at a recent Maryland school board meeting, complained that it was all about control. According to the news report:

“Ms. Long complained about ‘politicians and their bull-- — science. This is not about health. It’s about control.’”

Not to be outdone, a speaker at a North Carolina school board meeting was even more defiant as she protested government control:
 

“‘The reason for these mask mandates is not the health of our kids. It’s all about control,’ one woman said. ‘We do not consent. We do not comply.’”

“It’s about control” has, by sheer force of repetition, programmed itself into ordinary people’s brains. People who would otherwise have lived perfectly normal, good lives immerse themselves in conservative discourse and, by sheer force of hearing the repetition, begin to parrot right-wing phrases. I can’t say that they are parroting ideas. They aren’t. They are parroting words that have pounded into their minds. 

In other words, conservatives use the jackhammer approach to persuasion.


And Misdirection!
A rational, issue-based discussion of vaccines and masks would focus on the actual issues. Does the FDA have good evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective? Are there documented harms from the vaccines, or do masks really trap your carbon dioxide? Discussing substantive evidence will get conservatives only so far, since they don’t really have much evidence. Talking about microscopic octopi and DNA modification only gets you so far. But as soon as conservatives say, “It’s about control,” we are no longer debating the same issues. We are, instead, questioning whether we want to let the government tell us what to do. Do we want the government to tell us how to raise our children? Do we want the government to make health decisions on our behalf?

There is, of course, nothing new or tyrannical about public health. I grew up in the era of polio quarantines. The Founders of our Republic imposed quarantines and other public health measures when they thought they were necessary.

Of course, unfortunately, on the whole, the conservative public knows no more about history than they do about science. And so, the pandemic rages on – needlessly, and tragically.

For, in real life, it is not about control.

_____________________

Further Reading: People Did Not Believe Cassandra’s Warnings About the Trojan Horse, And People Didn’t Believe Bill Gates’ Warning about Viral Pandemics

Elaine’s Post: COVID-19 Misinformation and Lies Are Killing Young People

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

Research Note: A theory of persuasion called the Elaboration Likelihood Model says that there two different ways that audiences can process information. They can take the Central Route, which means they gather information and analyze the issue. Or they can take the Peripheral Route, in which they rely on otherwise irrelevant cues like the attractiveness of the source, or the simple repetition of the message.

People who feel qualified and willing to analyze information carefully will engage in critical thinking when they hear persuasive messages. People who, for whatever reason, are not analyzing the information will instead rely on cues. The simple fact that so many people have heard “It’s all about control” so many times gives them a peripheral cue. Repetition can persuade people–if they don’t spend time and effort to analyze the facts.


Citizenship Note: Yes, the conservative media outlets are utterly irresponsible. The rest of the public does, however, need to listen to what they are saying. There is, for example, no reason that the anti-public-health hysteria should have caught public health experts off guard. Right-wing propaganda goes under the radar only if people refuse to turn on their metaphorical radar sets and pay attention to what conservatives are saying. Yes, conservatives often live in a media bubble. When they emerge from that bubble, however, they can sometimes become quite dangerous. Pay attention.

[Note: In this post, I supplied italics every time someone said, “it’s about control.” The words are the same; I just added italics.] 

P.S. I love Kevin Sorbo's shows. Especially Andromeda. Just saying.