Nib #16: Invest in Grace

Congress’s debate last week about a $96 billion foreign aid bill was an orgy of rhetorical outrage porn — “Traitor!” “Warmongers!” “Putin Caucus!” “Wrong side of history!”

Maybe the most important lesson young writers can take from it is that, just a few days later, it’s already hard to remember who hurled which epithets at whom? The unsatisfying (but very Christian) truth is that invective, however fun to write, is unpersuasive. Insults are not like bricks, but feathers: harmless, except to the reputation of anyone foolish enough to throw them at an enemy.

It’s not a coincidence that the two best floor speeches of the week — from Republicans on either side of the party’s internal populist-internationalist divide — contained no insults at all.

The first was retiring Congressman Mike Gallagher’s (R-Wis.) farewell to the U.S. House of Representatives. The hawkish Gallagher was a proud supporter of the aid bill, and a prime mover behind its TikTok divestment piece.

“This is how I always wanted to go out,” Gallagher said.

His speech commends embattled Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for bringing the aid bills to the floor and stiff-arms any fellow Republicans plotting against Johnson. But notice how Gallagher does it, without attacking anyone:

“I firmly believe the Speaker has emerged on the other side of this stronger and a statesman. Any Motion to Vacate will fail, the Republican majority will grow as three special election seats get filled in the coming weeks…”

This is a more powerful blow against Johnson’s critics than the personal slurs =GOP elites too often hurl at them. It scores the “Vacate the Chair” caucus not for their supposed sins, but simply because the strategy won’t work. As Establishment attacks against Donald Trump have shown for years, haughty, finger-wagging insults only energize opponents. On the other hand, straightforward descriptions of political reality can discourage radicalization, without anyone losing face.

Meanwhile, the best speech against the aid bills came from Congressman Chip Roy (R-Texas). Roy opened his remarks with a gracious apology to his Republican Rules Committee chairman for having to oppose him in his first week on the job. He then unloads on Democrats (smart, given his Republican target audience) and the bill’s shortcomings before closing with:

“Speaker Johnson said in January: ‘If President Biden wants a supplemental spending bill focused on national security, it better begin with defending America’s national security. We want to get the border closed and secured first.’ To that I say, amen, and I would say where is that Speaker Johnson?”

This is how you hammer someone in a debate. Not with schoolyard insults, but with his or her own words.

Young writers need not agree on the virtues of either Gallagher or Roy’s position in this debate to see that their speeches succeeded because they were rhetorically virtuous. Note well: neither speech pulled punches — neither shied from the fray. Both were charged with political aggression. But both were also written with grace.

In debate - as in other aspects of life — grace is an investment. It cleanses, strengthens, and clarifies even caustic arguments, making debaters more persuasive in the moment and more respected over time. Gracious political rhetoric is not about offering undue respect to one’s opponents, but due respect for one’s audience. That’s why grace’s returns, like those of other virtues like honesty or prudence -- compound. It makes one's arguments more persuasive to more people over time.

There is a reason Gallagher is generally held in higher esteem by anti-establishment conservatives — and Roy seen as more formidable by GOP elites — than most of their factional allies.

Even in the most contentious debates, they both invest in grace and reap its returns. So should all writers.

Until next week … keep writing!

< Older Nib

Newer Nibs >

Nib #19: Meet Your Audience Where They Are

17 May, 2024

It’s the writer’s job to persuade, not the audience’s *to be* persuaded. To move readers from A to B, you have to meet them at A.

Nib #18: Joe Biden’s Pretty Good Campus Chaos Speech

10 May, 2024

The Nib of the Week’s frequent criticism of President Joe Biden’s speeches belies the soft spot I’ll always have for the guy. So it was nice to see Ole Joe give a pretty good speech about the snarling “encampments” besetting America’s college campuses this Spring. Let’s dive in. The speech begins poorly, alas, with a muddled riff about “fundamental American principles” and some bush-league partisan preening about “authoritarianism” and “those who rush in to score political points.” But then the tone shifts. “Violent protest is not protected [by our Constitution]; peaceful protest is. It’s against the law when violence occurs.” The language is a bit stilted there, but Biden soon hits his stride. In quick succession, he calls out: “destroying property … vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations … threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear.” Note the hard, prosecutorial word choices. Then, Biden goes even further, aligning himself with the students the encampments are harassing. Then, God love him, Biden goes there: “There should be no place on any campus, no place in America for antisemitism or threats of violence against Jewish students… There is no place for racism in America. It’s all wrong. It’s un-American.” Conservative readers may question why anyone should give the president credit for a belated and banal endorsement of basic justice and American political norms. But look more closely at what the president did here: he punched, effectively, to his left. Biden’s biggest problems this election year are the public perceptions that (a) he is a bumbling incompetent in mental decline, and (b) he shares the woke extremism of the New Left. This speech pushes back on both narratives. Biden energetically indicts the encampments’ criminal tactics and then outright condemns their motivating, anti-Semitic bigotry -- targeting the very voters Biden and Democrats need to win in November. Theretofore, most elite Democrats had tried to thread various rhetorical needles on the encampments. “Criticizing Israel isn’t anti-Semitic!” “99% of the protesters are peaceful!” “Rioting is the language of the unheard!” Biden, by contrast, shoves through the bothsidesism like a snowplow. Riots are bad, period . Anti-Semitism is bad, period . Shutting down colleges is bad, period . No doubt some in the White House wanted more nuance, more “but of course…”, more attacks against Republicans or even — gulp — Israel. But those would have compromised the mission of the speech, which was to re-assert Biden’s membership in the United States of Normal, Everyday Americans. Good on him — and whoever in the White House speech-approval process kept the text on the rails. The lesson for young writers — when an issue arises enabling you to triangulate with 97% of the country against a tiny fringe of mouthy, racist criminals, be like Joe and don’t overthink it. Moral clarity still works. Until next week… keep writing!