Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
As we (mercifully) bring the curtains down on 2010, CBS's Mark Knoller runs the numbers on President Obama's 2010 and finds that the POTUS gave 491 speeches, statements, or remarks this year.
During our assignment desk exercise a few weeks back, there was a request that Peter, Bill, or I delve into the topic of presidential speechwriting. Rather than get into a comprehensive overview of the topic, let's restrict our analysis to this single metric for now: 491 is too many. Way too many.
It's been the tendency of recent presidential administrations to confuse action with progress. Every time poll numbers start to sag or an issue becomes thorny, the White House's default is to have the President deliver a speech. Not only is this pretty lazy politics, it's also contributing to an institutional weakening of the presidency. The bully pulpit just doesn't mean that much when it's employed on a daily basis. After all, if everything's important, nothing is. And that's why modern presidents are getting tuned out by the public earlier and earlier in their administrations.
A few pointers for President Obama and any of his successors who hope to meaningfully connect with the American public:
Speak Less -- Ditch the weekly radio address (almost no one tunes in on a Saturday morning, and the few who do are drying out in a Waffle House), don't feel the need to be a cultural pundit, and, for God's sake, don't debase yourself with visits to The View or the Late Show with David Letterman. Candidates may need to be ubiquitous, but presidents don't. Nobody's going to forget you're around as long as you have nuclear launch codes. Ben Bernanke may not have to run for office, but the Fed Chair model of speaking infrequently and only when you have something meaningful to say would both restore some dignity to the presidency and ensure a much more attentive audience when the Commander-in-Chief does open his mouth.
Have Something Interesting to Say -- This may sound extraordinarily basic, but it's a principle violated by most professional politicians on a regular basis. Part of the torpor of modern presidential speeches is that they mostly sound as if they're run off an assembly line. The same points are made in the same language, ad nauseam. And because the process of crafting a presidential speech combines the natural risk aversion of a White House communications operation with vetting by the bureaucracy, the language often ends up about as inspired as a workplace training video. Some of the contemporary politicians who best avoid this pitfall are Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, and Mitch Daniels (whose 2009 commencement address at Butler University is one of the best speeches given by a politician in the last decade).
One distinction should be made here, specific to Barack Obama: even as a candidate, Obama rarely had anything interesting to say. What he had was a fascinating way of saying it. However, given all the adulation, he seems to have developed the political equivalent of the Madden Curse since taking office.
Keep it Brief -- One of the other problems with presidential speeches is that they tend to be interminable. The State of the Union, one of the most visible presidential speeches in any year, is usually a 45 minute laundry list of funding requests from the Department of Agriculture and the like. A president could have a lot more impact with a lot less effort by delivering a barn-burning, 15 minute State of the Union address.
In communication, as in policy, President Obama seems convinced that more is always better. But he needs to learn that there is something of a Laffer Curve to presidential speeches. Value is partially a function of scarcity. Fewer words from the White House may well mean greater respect from the electorate.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Would that we could have another president who, like Calvin Coolidge, could say this at the end of his term of office: "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business."
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
I endorse your recommendations, Troy, very heartily, but I have a question: Has anyone ever tallied up the number of speeches Ronald Reagan delivered in a given year--let's say 1983, the year in which I joined his staff? As the junior writer, I got all the little assignments that first year--tapings, remarks to Girl Scouts, that kind of stuff. I don't have my records any more--they're buried, now, somewhere in the depths of the Reagan Library--but as I recall I wrote almost 200 pieces that year. And I was one of six speechwriters on the staff. In other words, I wouldn't be suprised to learn that the Gipper spoke at least as often as Obama.
Could we agree, Troy, that whereas hundreds of speeches a year is too many 44th chief exec, it might have been okay for the 40th? (Especially since a lot of the Reagan material was very specifically targeted to this or that group. I have the feeling that the Obama White House strains for national coverage every time their man sneezes, let alone delivers prepared remarks.)
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Agreed, Mike. Though at this point I'd settle for another president who would even find that line of thought intelligible.
Jul '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
I haven't been able to listen to any speech or press conference from any President since Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush was too fey. Clinton was too fraudulent. George W. Bush was too halting and vapid. And Barack Obama...well...every word is a lie.
Sep '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
You are being too kind. It wasn't that over familiarity made us bored, it's that Obama was bad at it. The White House believed there own BS, they thought Obama was a good persuasive speaker--the fools. But he was not. He was bad. Very, very bad. His press conferences were excruciating to watch--I never thought I'd long for the return of George W.--and his prepared town hall type health care appearances were godawful. If Obama had given three hundred fewer speeches, there wouldn't have been a tea party.
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Peter, I think that most of the Ricochet community would join me in pronouncing a universal exception to virtually all political ground rules when it comes to Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps he didn't suffer for quantity because he didn't fall prey to the typical hangups on quality. When you're willing to buck the editors (ala the Brandenburg Gate speech) and slam a hard copy of the budget (or was it the tax code?) on the podium during the State of the Union, I think you get a pass.
The biggest factor, however, has to be that Reagan always treated speeches as an opportunity for public persuasion, unlike most subsequent presidents, who have relied almost exclusively on assertion. In this, he was remarkably Lincolnesque. And, as with Abe, I don't think anyone begrudges a few more speeches from that kind of talent.
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
By the way, Peter, I also second your point about the smaller speeches (or "Rose Garden Rubbish" as I've heard them derisively dubbed in the past). The speeches themselves aren't objectionable. In fact, as originally conceived, they can be a rather charming method for putting the President together with the kind of folks he wouldn't otherwise encounter in the course of a day.
Sadly the audience tends to get used as props these days. The focus is often on getting a 15-second soundbite in the 6:25 slot on the evening news. Even worse is when a President drones on about his own initiatives at these events (can you image being a Boy Scout visiting the White House and then having to hear 10 minutes on the president's community service initiative?).
May '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Great line.
Excellent point.
If only we had a prayer of hearing a sentiment like that again. Thanks for digging that up.
Nov '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Your good advice is wasted on Obama, Troy. The man simply does not have the Right Stuff to be President.
Jul '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Craig is on to something. Obama is the greatest asset the Tea Party has, and since he has decorated the White House with addle pated yes men of no discernible value I do not expect a meaningful course correction. As the political season ramps up he may well come up with new marriage laws, child rearing laws, car maintenance laws, arrange rolling blackouts in red states, federal licensing of manicurists, death panels for used car purchasers, outlawing of odd octets on the Internet, mandatory federal cookies to track visitation to seditious web sites, and, of course, renew the ancient kingly prerogative of sleeping with select brides on their wedding night and extend polygyny rights to current and past Presidents.
Which is no excuse to let up. Letting up is how defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory.
Edited on Dec 31, 2010 at 10:41pmOct '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
If I remember right Coolidge was the last President who wrote his own material. Is that a relic of the past or is there a chance it might come back, even in a limited way, in the future?
Jun '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
A president needs a speech-writer to be able to talk to Boy Scouts? Compound that with a TOTUS and you have no ability at all to connect to "the people."
I care little about what the President's speech-writers would have him saying on most occasions, I want to know what he is hearing. We learned more about that from Wikileaks than from every speech of the SecDef, SecState and POTUS combined.
Edited on Jan 1, 2011 at 5:37amDec '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
As a retired corporate speechwriter, it was obvious to me that Obama's campaign speeches were what might be called all sizzle and no steak. ("We are the ones we are waiting for.") However, such meaningless nonsense from the oval office will not do in times of crisis. Highlighting this flaw hundreds of times in speeches over a year is fodder for parody, not serious thought.
Jul '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Troy Senik:
Speak Less --
Have Something Interesting to Say --
Keep it Brief --
You forgot one
Tell the Truth -- Make sure that statements you make have some basis in reality. (See: "If you like your health plan you can keep it.") It is important to realize that some people will remember the things you say, even if your media lap dogs don't.
The problem with Obozo is his complete ignorance regarding economics. The more you get of something the less the demand, and therefore the less the value. The One continues to flood the market with his words and cannot understand why it is that the marginal return on investment is diminishing. (see 47% approval ratings)
Simply put, it doesn't matter how many times you explain to someone that a Mule should be a Horse, the Mule will be a Mule and the Horse will be a Horse. At a certain point when the public realizes you are talking about a Mule and not a Horse the continuation of your "oratory" only annoys and drives people away.
Dec '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
491!! Good grief, and Obama thinks that in the new year to help his case(s) he intends to speak more!? Lord Help us all.
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Yes, that's exactly right. The Gipper never, ever wanted to harangue his audiences, insisting instead on our writing speeches that represented arguments or cases. And--this runs counter to the received wisdom on Reagan, but it's true all the same--he insisted on facts. "Specificity," he reminded us writers more than once, "is the soul of persuasion."
Sep '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Great post. A link is on the way.
Oct '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
"Ditch the weekly radio address (almost no one tunes in on a Saturday morning, and the few who do are drying out in a Waffle House)"
If it wasn't for the occasional reference to it in a news story, I wouldn't even be aware that they are still doing this.
I would almost say that the only people who are tuning in are those people who are being paid to make sure they know what Obama said so they can report on it. Does anybody in the actual, you know, *public* ever listen to these?
They even tried putting them on Youtube at the beginning of Obama's term. That quickly died. The March 21, 2009 one has 197 views!
May '10
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Troy -- Not surprisingly, I think your advice could be offered to your average university professor as well.
Re: Presidential Speeches and Diminishing Marginal Returns
Bereket,
The first presidential speechwriter is generally held to be Judson Welliver (for whom the organization of former White House speechwriters -- and yes, we are subjected to a branding iron -- is named). Welliver served under Harding and Coolidge, though it seems as if Coolidge may have written some of his own material.
As for the present day, there are major political figures who don't use speechwriters. Mitch Daniels writes his own material and Newt Gingrich (for whom I used to write radio addresses) usually gives speeches extemporaneously, with bullet points at most. For a president, however, the volume of speeches would have to be dramatically truncated to even consider self-authorship and most presidents still would have neither the time nor the inclination.