The Good, the "Bad," and the Pointless

Senator Slotkin's Response to Trump

I didn’t watch Trump’s speech to Congress Tuesday night. Nor did I doomscroll through any real-time reactions. Instead, I spent most of Tuesday evening trying to relearn a Mozart sonata that I played (poorly) as a teenager and the rest of the night starting a new bread dough.

The next morning, however, I sought out the official Democratic response to Trump’s address, delivered by Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI). I found her speech to be all the things—good, bad, and pointless. But mainly pointless. No, mainly good. But still, pointless.

ICYMI, you can watch it here. It’s just over nine minutes long. (You can adjust the playback speed to get through it faster.)

If you prefer reading to video, here’s the text of Slotkin’s speech.

I’ll deal with the good, the bad, and the pointless of the speech. In reverse order.

The Pointless

Official responses to a Presidential address inevitably suffer the fate that Abraham Lincoln modestly—but erroneously—predicted for his own Gettysburg Address: “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here.”

Pop Quiz: Can you recall any part of any official response? Probably not. The only things that live in memory are occasional weird bits of staging—Marco Rubio, lunging out of frame for a water bottle in 2013; Katie Britt, in her kitchen in 2024; and the awkward silence as Bobby Jindal made his a long walk to camera in 2009.

Three moments of cringe: Marco Rubio, Katie Britt, Bobby Jindal

Senator Slatkin in her response avoided any big comedy missteps. She did, however, make a small one that I’ll mention shortly.

Slotkin did much better than I had anticipated. But I expect that the speech wasn’t generally heard and if it was it didn’t matter.

The “Bad”

Let’s deal with the worst of it first. Senator Slotkin invoked Ronald Reagan. *GASP*. And with admiration. *DOUBLE GASP.*

Based on social media responses, praising Reagan triggered a strong barf reflex in many Democrats and leftists. (Confession: I felt it, too.)

The intrusion of the name Reagan provoked a bunch of posts making the case against any Democrat ever mentioning him for praise. I’ll link one here:

Memo to Dems: Ronald Reagan Is Not Your Friend

I get the point, butshe wasn’t giving Reagan a pass for his regressive policies. She simply opened the door to Reagan supporters, giving them permission to join us in opposing Trump. I’m reasonably confident there’s no danger of Reagan himself, running again. The controversy, which is sure to be forgotten along with speech was an echo of candidate Kamala Harris campaigning alongside Liz Cheney.

The first question any speechmaker or speechwriter needs to answer is, “Who am I talking to?” (Pedantic speechwriters, of course, ask, “To whom am I talking?”) Slotkin’s presentation—and before that the very selection of Slotkin to give it— was, clearly, aimed, not at militant Democrats and leftists yearning for a high-decibel screed, but rather at two groups that Democrats need to reach and recruit

• People who voted for Trump—or stayed home—but who are now feeling buyer’s remorse over the chaos and corruption of Trump and Musk’s first forty days—especially in the seven swing states that tipped the election to Trump

• Discouraged Harris voters who are feeling despondent and disengaged

That’s in contrast to Trump’s address, which, based on morning-after polls, was a smash hit with his cult—but only with his cult. Filled with lies, bombast, lunacy, and threats, it was more a rally rant and standup routine than a policy address. CNN reports that, “the pool of people who watched Trump speak on Tuesday was about 14 percentage points more Republican than the general public.” And even with that skewed audience, the speech was only moderately successful, gaining lower approval than a typical presidential address to Congress.

Sen. Slotkin, by contrast, sought to reach beyond the Democrats’ hard core anti-Trump base to bring in people that Democrats will need to win future elections— (assuming we have any.

The Good

Slotkin ticked as many boxes as you can reasonably expect in a nine-minute speech.

She started off with a double dig at the bloated Trump rant. “It’s late, so I promise to be a lot shorter than what you just watched.” That not only highlighted Trump’s record-busting verbosity but also amounted to a breezy dismissal, characterizing it simply as “what you just watched” and not dignifying it as “President Trump’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress.”

Though brief, Senator Slotkin’s speech followed the classic rhetorical structure that public speakers have employed since—and certainly before—Aristotle codified it.

First, Ethos: Who is speaking and why should we find her credible

Largely unknown on the national stage, Slotkin opened with a short bio: Child of a mixed marriage (a Republican to a Democrat), a national-security patriot, energized after the 9-11 attack to join the CIA, tours of duty overseas, and—perhaps most important—a freshman Senator who carried a district (and state) where Trump had won. Given the people that party leadership was trying to reach, those are excellent credentials.

Second, Pathos: An appeal to emotion

Slotkin sought an emotional connection both at the outset and throughout the speech. She acknowledged the top two grievances that alienated voters from the Biden-Harris record—inflation and immigration. “Americans made it clear that prices are too high and that government needs to be more responsive to their needs. America wants change.” And later, “every country deserves to know who and what is coming across its border. Period. Democrats and Republicans should all be for that.”

She took the emotional appeal further by evoking Trump’s unpopular co-president—and his gang of 20-somethings.

“Elon Musk just called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

While we’re on the subject of Elon Musk, is there anyone in America who is comfortable with him and his gang of 20-year-olds using their own computer servers to poke through your tax returns, your health information, and your bank accounts?”

Third, Logos: An appeal to reason

The heart of the speech was a brief outline of her party’s commitment to shared American values and goals, followed by making the case against what Trump has already done and is threatening to do in the future—both domestically and in international relations.

In this, she also followed Aristotle’s prescription: “dispose the hearers favorably towards oneself and unfavorably towards the adversary.”

Naturally, a nine-minute speech will never be a detailed policy manifesto, but Slotkin’s short list of goals was well-chosen to “dispost the hearers favorably.” She confined herself to four items—all of which set up contrasts with what Trump proposes:

• “bring down the price of things we spend the most money on: Groceries. Housing. Healthcare. Your car.” (Trump’s address had zero mention of the cost of housing and healthcare. As for grocery prices, all he said was that it’s all Biden’s fault.)

• “make more things in America with good-paying, union jobs — and bring our supply chains back home from places like China.” (While Trump’s tariff regime and wholesale gutting of regulations are touted as favoring U.S. manufacturing, the trade war they will set off will do the opposite as it increases prices and manufacturing costs, puts American goods at a disadvantage.)

• “give American businesses the certainty they need to invest and create the jobs of the future.” (Trump’s misguided obsession with tariffs will do the excact opposite)

• “a tax system that’s fair for people who don’t happen to make a billion dollars.” (Trump spoke at length about his tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy and corporations).

And then she moved on to Aristotle’s second prescription: dispose the hearers unfavorably towards the adversary.

She began with Trump’s threats to Social Security, Medicare, VA benefits, framing it as favoring the super-wealthy at the expense of the rest of us:

“President Trump is trying to deliver an unprecedented giveaway to his billionaire friends. He’s on the hunt to find trillions of dollars to pass along to the wealthiest in America. And to do that, he’s going to make you pay in every part of your life.”

She went on to cover the chaos of Musk’s indiscriminate firings and then framed the Oval Office ambush of Zelenskyy as an example of Trump’s approach to foreign policy:

“He believes in cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends, like Canada, in the teeth.

She closed on a note of hope reaffirming Democrats’ commitment to shared American values and challenging viewers with a strong call to action, urging them to engage on issues that are important to them.

It was in this section that Slotkin made her one delightful verbal gaffe. Advising viewers to get active and engaged, she reminded them that some of America’s most important movements “started from the bottle up.”

I’ll drink to that.

PS. Still working on the Mozart. The bread (whole grain onion rye) came out fine.