Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Peter, I'm in the thick of teaching a speechwriting course at Hillsdale, and have a question for you that might be interesting to the Ricochet community. I wonder if you could offer some analysis of the rest of the Tear Down This Wall speech. There's probably a great deal in it that you had to say, for policy reasons, etc. And wonder if there's anything to say about the organization, or what was in Reagan's mind.
The reason I ask has to do with watching Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech. I realized that, even as a professional speechwriter, many great speeches I know only from reading them, not from watching them. Watching Reagan's controlled anger, and his vigor, gave the words a perspective they don't have on paper. Conversely, most young students have seen the clip with the soundbite "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" But most have not listened to the whole speech, and know only the soundbite.
So I'm having them read famous speeches aloud -- but not handing it out to the students beforehand. I want them to hear the famous words the way the audience heard them. But wonder on this one, if my primary source (Peter) can illuminate any interesting parts about the rest of the speech, or even about the formation (apart from the thirty people trying to take out the line).
Ditto for Ich bin ein Berliner. Most know the soundbite, and that's it.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
It is important in times of great peril to show our support for fine pastries.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Amen!
And now is the time for all good speechwriters to come to the aid of their fellow Welliverian (after Judson Welliver, literary clerk to Harding, considered first presidential speechwriter).
Sep '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Bill,
I would do as Peter did with Mark and Rob on Uncommon Knowledge and contrast the 2 speeches as to delivery style. As you know, Reagan changed his method of delivery as he aged and, I think, he was more effective because of the slower cadence of his speech and his more humorous delivery. I think the Tear Down This Wall speech is the perfect way to contrast late and early Reagan.
Sep '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Oh, and carry on with asking Peter the original question, I guess I kind of butted in there.
May '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Bill,
It is well worth a re-read of Peter's wonderful book "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life". Chapter Four, headed "Tear Down That Wall" gives extensive background to the drafting of that speech, the arguments over its content, and the fall-out. The section "The Angry Hausfrau", describing how Peter's hostess at a dinner in Berlin essentially handed him the climax to the speech in conversation, is particularly good. The speech effectively by-passed all the diplomacy and power politics to articulate the pain and frustration of the real people of Berlin.
I've only just got round to buying (thanks, Kindle, and my parents-in-law!) the book, and it has completely stopped my reading of various other interesting and well-read books on the machine - Peter's writing is so clear, compelling, authentic and *humble*. The title does describe the contents, but it doesn't capture how fascinating, and far-reaching the story is. I wish I'd bought it earlier.
I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted, but read the book, people!
Oct '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
This seems to be Quote Myself Day. Back at the now defunct Quasiblog, I once suggested that:
“Obama's adoring constituency was mesmerized as much by the seductive rhythms and rising intensity of evangelical exhortation [irony, indeed!] as by the power of the sentiments he expressed, which in text form are notable for the sloppiness of their construction.”
Watching oh-so-secular liberals succumb, ecstatically, to oratory patently patterned on fundamentalist sermonizing was uniquely gratifying.
May '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
The shame in quoting that line in isolation is that, in context, the line has deeper meaning than a mere confrontation.
The line was the "then" half of an "if / then" formulation (if you seek peace, prosperity, liberalization, etc., then...etc). In context, the line reads as a stern appeal to Gorbachev's better nature, which makes it all the more effective and less inclined to be interpreted as an affront, as the State Dept. wrongly feared.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Robert Dammers: Bill,
It is well worth a re-read of Peter's wonderful book "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life". Chapter Four, headed "Tear Down That Wall" gives extensive background to the drafting of that speech, the arguments over its content, and the fall-out. The section "The Angry Hausfrau", describing how Peter's hostess at a dinner in Berlin essentially handed him the climax to the speech in conversation, is particularly good. The speech effectively by-passed all the diplomacy and power politics to articulate the pain and frustration of the real people of Berlin.
I've only just got round to buying (thanks, Kindle, and my parents-in-law!) the book, and it has completely stopped my reading of various other interesting and well-read books on the machine - Peter's writing is so clear, compelling, authentic and *humble*. The title does describe the contents, but it doesn't capture how fascinating, and far-reaching the story is. I wish I'd bought it earlier.
I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted, but read the book, people! · Feb 23 at 8:35am
Just to confirm our arrangement, Robert, your check is in the mail.
Dec '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Bill, it would be interesting to have one or two of your students read the speeches aloud to their classmates, and then play the recordings of the original speakers. The difference that the speaker's choices in delivery make can be profound.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Scott Reusser: The shame in quoting that line in isolation is that, in context, the line has deeper meaning than a mere confrontation.
The line was the "then" half of an "if / then" formulation (if you seek peace, prosperity, liberalization, etc., then...etc).· Feb 23 at 9:12am
Scott's got the critical point, Bill. What gets lost these days is the international context into which Reagan was stepping. Gorbachev had only begun speaking about glasnost and perestroika a few months earlier. The United States had not yet responded, and the question on everyone's mind--and which in a way underlay my every thought in drafting the speech--was simply this: Does Gorbachev really mean it? If he does--and, as Scott notes, then "if" was critical to the whole formulation--then there's one handy way for him to prove it.
And, when it comes down to it, only one way. With that speech, Reagan was effectively establishing the standard by which to judge Gorbachev's sincerity and effectiveness. Gorbachev had promised reform. The speech represented Reagan's reply: The Cold War won't be over, buster, until the Berlin Wall comes down.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
A couple of additional notes your kids might find of some interest:
You'll see that the speech devotes some time to telling the economic story of post-war West Germany and West Berlin--and contrasting the prosperity the free parts of Germany had achieved with the terrible, oppressive poverty and stagnation in the Communist East. This is a technique the president first used in his Westminster Address, which (as you know, Bill) Tony Dolan drafted. The idea here is that Reagan wanted to demonstrate that he wasn't merely spouting ideology. The principles of human liberty and free markets were grounded in actual, lived experience. They worked. Reagan was the realist, in other words, and those on the left the mere ideologues. You'll also see that Reagan spends time talking about spiritual values. For him, this was like breathing. All he believed about the dignity of the individual arose from his convictions about God. Reagan truly--deeply and implicitly--believed that it was our Creator who endowed us with inalienable rights.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Last note: For a period of about three or four minutes, the speech goes flat--your kids will sense it. There's stuff in there about increased flyover rights for western airlines, support for Berlin as an international conference center--a whole passage of diplo-speak. That's the material the State Department insisted on inserting.
May '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Bill McGurn: Amen!
And now is the time for all good speechwriters to come to the aid of their fellow Welliverian (after Judson Welliver, literary clerk to Harding, considered first presidential speechwriter). · Feb 23 at 7:23am
I can't get over the news that Presidents, pre-Harding, didn't have speechwriters. It would be interesting to turn back the clock a bit to see how modern presidents would fare with a more minimalist support structure (I'm tempted to compare it to Dogme 95, but that would mean no car chases... and you've got to have car chases).
May '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
This Steyn take on the speech, and the man, is a classic (It's his obit of Reagan from Passing Parade.).
Nov '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Mr. McGurn, your description of your course makes me wish that I could roll back 'half a century and take it as a college sophomore. You obviously are an inspiring teacher and Hillsdale is a very astute college to engage your talents for the term.
As a matter of curosity, I wonder whether you have "rooms" on campus and whether you have tutorial hours in them. I found those sessions invaluable in my time as a (middling, at best) scholar.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
I don't have rooms, but since I am on campus and have no family with me, I'm pretty available. It's actually quite interesting for me to, to observe college kids up close. Of course, Hillsdale is not like most colleges. The big dispute here is between conservatives and libertarians.
Jul '10
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Bill, libertarians are conservatives. Chocolate is different from vanilla, but they are both flavors of ice cream.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
I hope the readers note Peter's aside below. Those of us who've practiced the craft can spot this pabulum instantly.
In its most benign form, you get stuck with language that Shakespeare himself couldn't make interesting -- and you're simply fighting to keep the president from sounding like a DMV form.
In its more malign incarnation, you get real intellectual and moral weakness. I once witnessed a speech commemorating America's role in World War II morph from "Victory in the Pacific" to "Valor in the Pacific" because of the notion that the former formulation would humiliate the Japanese. The speechwriting office's retort that we thought the USS Missouri took care of that fell on deaf ears.
Re: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Troy, Troy, don't get me started. Perhaps my favorite instance of the sheer craven stupidity that so often emerged when bureaucrats got hold of presidential speeches involves the statement that my colleague Josh Gilder prepared for President Reagan's signature when John Davis Lodge, a former governor of Connecticut, died. Amb. Lodge, Josh wrote, had been "an anti-Communist and a patriot." The staff secretary deleted "anti-Communist." Why? No need to offend the Soviets.
This took place, I repeat, in the Reagan White House.
Josh and I considered flinging ourselves from the roof of the Old Executive Office Building.
Edited on Feb 23, 2011 at 10:27pmRe: Tear Down This Classroom, Peter
Ottoman Umpire
I can't get over the news that Presidents, pre-Harding, didn't have speechwriters. It would be interesting to turn back the clock a bit to see how modern presidents would fare with a more minimalist support structure (I'm tempted to compare it to Dogme 95, but that would mean no car chases... and you've got to have car chases). · Feb 23 at 11:56am
The size of the White House staff during the Lincoln administration?
Two.
Lincoln's young assistants, John Hay and John George Nicolay. Aside from some clerical assistance, that was it.