Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Troy Senik argued a couple of days ago that the world would be a happier place if politicians, but especially presidents, had to write their own speeches. I got overwhelmed with family duties this past weekend, and, since Troy's post has by now sunk deep into the Ricochet depths, I thought I'd offer a couple of thoughts here on the main feed.
1. Troy's right, of course. A world in which our chief executives wrote their own remarks would be a better world. Yet as Troy himself recognizes, no such world is likely to emerge. Presidents these days simply face too many demands on their time.
2. A good speechwriter can prove invaluable. As witness:
One day during the Reagan administration, the morning news included a story that Senate majority leader Bob Dole of Kansas was nearing a deal with Democrats on the Budget Committee to raise taxes. Dole seemed to try something like this every couple of months. My colleague on the speechwriting staff, Josh Gilder, and I spent a moment or two spluttering with exasperation. Then Josh had an idea. That very afternoon, Josh pointed out, President Reagan would deliver remarks Josh had written. Why not insert a couple of sentences?
Josh did just that. The result? To listen for yourself, click here.
From Time magazine of March 25, 1985:
"I have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase that Congress might even think of sending up. And I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers. Go ahead--make my day."
--Ronald Reagan, to the American Business ConferenceThe threat was one that Reagan had voiced many times before. But the words, echoing a celebrated Clint Eastwood line, marked a new high in cocky combativeness, even for a President who has never been exactly deficient in that quality. Both the business executives who greeted the dare with applause and laughter and the members of the Senate Budget Committee at whom it was aimed were aware that Reagan was mockingly embracing the very swaggering-cowboy image his detractors have long been trying to pin on him....
Only hours after his [Reagan's] talk...[the Budget Committee] began passing considerably deeper cuts in non-military spending than it had been willing to accept before. Finally, the committee's Republicans pushed through on a party-line vote of 11 to 9 a resolution aimed at slashing projected outlays next fiscal year by $55 billion, to $966 billion --a slightly deeper reduction than the White House had asked. Said Wisconsin Senator Robert Kasten, one of the Republicans preparing for a 1986 campaign: "President Reagan should feel we have done our best."
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Great story -- thanks.
Jul '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
My problem with speechwriters is that they're like alchemists; they can transform an intellectual nullity with the ability to read well from a teleprompter into a celebrity who appears to have intellectual substance. The two most prominent examples are Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.
Obama reads a speech well, but unscripted, he stammers and blurts out embarrassing faux pas.
Sarah Palin's feisty professionally-written speech at the 2008 Republican convention won the hearts of many conservatives. Contrast that to the nearly unintelligible speech she delivered upon her resignation from the Governorship.
In all fields of endeavor, it's the job of subordinates to make the boss look good. Speechwriters are just too damned good at their job.
May '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Combative, yes, but more tactful than the alternative Dirty Harry line: "Do yuh feel lucky, punk?" That probably wouldn't have gone over as well with Senator Dole.
Jul '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Another hazard of employing speechwriters is that they can sometimes put a catchy phrase into the mouth of a politician who doesn't really subscribe to the substance of the utterance.
How many times has George H.W. Bush regretted reading the line, "Read my lips. No new taxes"?
May '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Agreed. We're vulnerable to the "man behind the curtain" dynamic to a sad degree.
We'll see how the geniuses pull it off with the Libya speech.
Edited on Mar 28, 2011 at 3:03pmRe: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Many thanks, Kenneth, for providing the line that -- once rendered in Latin -- will adorn the Senik family crest.
Jul '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Scott Reusser: Combative, yes, but more tactful than the alternative Dirty Harry line: "Do yuh feel lucky, punk?" That probably wouldn't have gone over as well with Senator Dole. · Mar 28 at 2:41pm
Yes. Wouldn't want to rouse the undead contingent of the GOP.
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Kenneth: My problem with speechwriters is that they're like alchemists; they can transform an intellectual nullity with the ability to read well from a teleprompter into a celebrity who appears to have intellectual substance. The two most prominent examples are Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.
Obama reads a speech well, but unscripted, he stammers and blurts out embarrassing faux pas.
Sarah Palin's feisty professionally-written speech at the 2008 Republican convention won the hearts of many conservatives. Contrast that to the nearly unintelligible speech she delivered upon her resignation from the Governorship.
In all fields of endeavor, it's the job of subordinates to make the boss look good. Speechwriters are just too damned good at their job. · Mar 28 at 2:38pm
Kenneth, as usual, you are unfair to Palin. You are right about that particular speech. But she has done remarkably well in the months since. Time and again, she has gone for the jugular and drawn blood when others have held back. I have my doubts as to whether she is presidential timber, as do you, but it would be a mistake to underestimate her. She has better political instincts than any other Republican.
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Bob Dole -- best described as the tax collector for the welfare state. The real question for 2012 is whether the Republicans are going to nominate someone who sees himself in the same light: "a responsible Republican" who finds a way to make Obamacare work.
Jul '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth:
Obama reads a speech well, but unscripted, he stammers and blurts out embarrassing faux pas.
Sarah Palin's feisty professionally-written speech at the 2008 Republican convention won the hearts of many conservatives. Contrast that to the nearly unintelligible speech she delivered upon her resignation from the Governorship.
In all fields of endeavor, it's the job of subordinates to make the boss look good. Speechwriters are just too damned good at their job. · Mar 28 at 2:38pm
Kenneth, as usual, you are unfair to Palin. You are right about that particular speech. But she has done remarkably well in the months since. Time and again, she has gone for the jugular and drawn blood when others have held back. I have my doubts as to whether she is presidential timber, as do you, but it would be a mistake to underestimate her. She has better political instincts than any other Republican. · Mar 28 at 3:48pm
Professor, check out her speech in India.
Jun '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Speechwriting is a craft. I can appreciate a good speech like any object crafted from the hand of a master artisan. But, of course, we should recognize that the craftsman enjoys the luxury of time. When it comes to the world of ideas, genuine conviction, I prefer a spontaneous outburst. Such a moment can be suddenly revealing. You might remember that Rush spoke for an hour at the CPAC convention without notes. He knows what he thinks. And you will remember what candidate Obama said to Joe Wurtzelbacher about spreading the wealth around. Alas, if only the electorate had recognized the moment for what it was.
Jun '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Peter: I understand why, given the sheer volume of speeches that a president must give (which is probably about 1/3 of the number given by "the One") that speechwriters are essential. From earlier stories you have told, on the really important speeches, President Reagan edited heavily until the speech became his own. And, boy, could he deliver a speech.
Given this, it sounds like the best situation is one where the speechwriters have a real feel for what the president actually believes (Reagan would have been great since he actually believed in something; Obama's penchant to be all over the map must drive his writers nuts), some experience for how he liked to structure a speech, and a feel for his cadence (maybe there's a better word).
Then you need a president who can transcend the teleprompter, by which I mean that, even though the speech is read, it sounds like it's extemporaneous. Reagan could do that, Obama can't.
Jul '10
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
I would respond, but my teleprompter is at the cleaners.
Mar '11
Re: Re: A World Without Speechwriters
Obama gives the impression that he is hiding behind a rhetorical facade. Reagan and George W. Bush gave the impression that they were speaking their minds--as if their speechwriters were editors of presidential thought, not creators of it.
Edited on Mar 28, 2011 at 6:31pm