Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Speeches
At FiveThirtyEight — you know, the site that does opinion poll analysis and aggregation based on baseball sabermetrics and has pretty much been treated as a Delphic oracle ever since Nate Silver called the 2012 election? — they’re running a pukemaking pair of columns called The Perfect Democratic Stump Speech and The Perfect Republican Stump Speech.
They asked two well-known political speechwriters, Jeff Nussmann for the Democrats and Barton Swaim for the Republicans, to write the ideal, focus-group-tested, entirely-pandering stump speech for a generic Democratic or generic Republican presidential candidate. The speeches they wrote are based on the positions and phrases, according to polls and their experience, that most appeal to the target audience. Both include margin notes explaining why they chose those words and phrases, tips on how to deliver the lines, and the data they used to decide which positions the candidate should take.
“Here,” writes Nussbaum in the margin, “I’d advise a speaker to slow down and enunciate each syllable, matched with a forceful chopping gesture.” What’s the carefully-crafted line that requires this? Might it be something like, I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! or perhaps, You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold? Afraid not. The line is, “We’re going to get to work.” (Chop. Chop. Chop.)
Neither speechwriter reveals so much as a hint of shame about how deliberate they are in making sure they never commit the candidates to doing what the speech insinuates they’ll do. Swaim, for example, puts this line in the Republican speech: “We don’t need to take America back to some Cold War mentality, but we do need to speak and act with moral clarity about the naked aggression of Russia.” In the margins, he notes proudly that this is really good because,
Declaring an intention to speak and act with clarity or resoluteness is a nice way to criticize the present occupier of the office (in this case President Obama) — thus capitalizing on people’s suspicions that he isn’t decisive or doesn’t take principled stands — without obligating yourself to pursue specific policies once in office.
He published that comment. Proud of it, I’d guess. Just the way it is, right?
So I get it, now. You all know how baffled I’ve been by the insistence among all the Republican candidates that we don’t need to have a Syria policy, we just need a president who’s willing to say, “radical Islamic terrorism.” (Chop. Chop. Chop.) I truly didn’t get why saying that was supposed to help, but now I do. Their internal pollsters have figured out that those are winning words that make them sound principled and decisive. But heaven forfend the candidates feel obligated to pursue a specific policy once in office, particularly if they’ve been elected with a mandate to carry it out. Therefore that’s all the speechwriters let them say. So I’m guessing we should look forward to exactly the same policies, only this time, the president will say “radical Islamic terrorism” three times quickly every morning while turning seven times in a clockwise circle and wearing the pair of lucky socks he hasn’t washed since the Cowboys won the Superbowl. Or something.
I know. No one promised me democracy was a rose garden, only that it was better than any other system anyone’s ever tried. I’m not a child, I get it; all the stirring speeches in the world mean nothing if the candidate can’t get himself elected.
But here’s my question. Why does this sort of thing get a candidate elected? Why do people like it? Read both the perfectly-pandering Democrat stump speech and the perfectly-pandering Republican one. Look at the notes. Try to pretend you haven’t read the notes and don’t know, for a fact, just how much contempt these speechwriters and by implication the candidates who hire them feel for you. Imagine listening to the speech. Would you be anything but annoyed? Does it not sound to you like exactly what it is — a series of overused and vacant clichés? Can you imagine being moved, despite yourself? Do you not feel that both speeches sound like every speech Obama has given in the past eight years? Would you not sense, immediately, that the candidate believes you, the listener, to be really very, very stupid and easily manipulated?
If you would, does this not suggest that Ricochet is very different from the rest of the electorate? If we are, why? But most important, why does the rest of the electorate now prefer this sort of blathering, patronizing speech, when really, within living memory, it fully expected — and demanded — presidential candidates who would if necessary be able to make this sort of speech?
I’m baffled, honestly. What changed and when? Peter, you’d have the best insight of any of us — what’s happened to speechwriting culture?
Published in Culture, Elections, General, Politics
It’s the representative/delegate dichotomy. Do we elect politicians to stand in for ourselves? Or do we elect politicians to trust that they will act correctly knowing information that we can’t/don’t? If you want a representative, he should be enthralled to every opinion poll to represent the people of his district.
Absolutely, but if you’re going to make them good fantasies, why not make them really good. As in — what if you were the President of the United States of America.
Claire,
“The line is, “We’re going to get to work.” (Chop. Chop. Chop.)”
Must be a line for Kung Fu Kasich….
I always wanted someone to be the budget Eisenhower. Ike said, “I will go to Korea!” How about, “I will go to the Hill! I will sit there in the well of the House and debate the whole damn budget line-by-line if I have to!”
I think we don’t have good speeches because:
Now for some Bach to cleanse the soul:
I could not help thinking how Lt. Higgins would be ripped apart by the glib fast talking jackals of the MSM, SNL and the late night propagandists. No one would get a chance to hear what he actually said. Some line would be excerpted and twisted until a false ‘Alaska from my house’ line was created and then endlessly repeated.
The concept of finding people to tickle your ears applies in both faith and politics.
Politicians select their tunes from the polls, then play, as the Pied Piper of Hamelin, leading us like rats to the river.
Sadly, we are not immune to the consequences of our own fickle foolishness.
Politicians can put their finger in the wind because a majority of people won’t endure the discomfort or pain of following the truth.
Thanks for the Bach. It’s been a long time since I listened to any of the Brandenburg Concertos.
There’s a lot to everything you said. We used to listen to speeches, now we watch them. And why watch the whole thing when somebody will compile the highlights for you?
I wonder if our desire for ‘nice’ speeches is part of the problem in America.
Let me hazard a guess. Was anyone else able to stop watching? I’d put money on “no.” Bet you everyone who clicked “play” was unable to hit “pause,” at least until the first movement ended (maybe then, you remembered you had other things to do and stopped).
If I’m right about that, it suggests that neither exposure to modern literature, the fading of the trivium, our technology, our media, nor our decadence really explains why we put up with these boring speeches. We’re all natively capable of recognizing when something’s interesting and inspired. When it is, it gets our attention, no matter what else is going on around us.
That our politicians are uninspired and uninspiring dullards — and that this is what we expect of them — remains a mystery.
Yes, I was going to say that context and position matter. Of course we expect a sitting officeholder to have more than platitudes because we already entrusted him to pull the levers and turn the dials of policy.
A candidate, however, is much different. I am increasingly convinced that offering detailed proposals is all risk and no reward since the proposals will never ever be enacted without the transformation of the legislative process and with the simple changing of circumstances as time passes. Besides, of greater interest and within the ken of most people’s evaluative powers are evidence of character, guiding principles, persona, leadership skills, management skills, and ability to learn.
I’m glad I’ve found a small way to serve my country.
exactly. They haven’t dared to criticize obama, and the crickets regarding Hillary establishes abject corruption beyond any doubt.
Apparently Representative Pompeo didn’t even need that much information as his National Review attack article “Ted Cruz’s ‘Slap in the Face’ to Our Military Was Disgraceful” was lifted word for word from Rubio talking points.
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/700360252932407296
Lies – or aspirations?
Promises – or value markers?
Vague – or necessarily incomplete and high level?
Weasily – or mindful of how quickly circumstances change?
Simplistic – or understandable?
Overly guarded – or defending against pedantry and disingenuousness?
Sparing of detail – or avoiding too many chefs spoiling the broth and then getting blamed for it?
The deluge of obfuscation is what is so tiring in this process. It is also a “tell”. The candidate giving the least amount of doublespeak is the most reliable. I am a Cruz man now!
Trust your instincts as on a multiple choice test
Yeah, exactly. Duh! Primary stump speeches are not comparable to declarations of war after an attack. Puh-leeze!
Here’s something far more disturbing, from a NYT poll linked at the FiveThirtyEight Republican speech: 68% of Americans (53% of Republicans) favor increasing taxes on people earning over $1 million per year. Yes, that’s right folks, even Republicans favor the soak the rich ideology. We are doomed.
I should probably say that it is unfair to compare a stump speech to a speech calling for a declaration of war. They have different functions.
I get the impression that the modern stump speech is just a way of ticking down a list of positions you hold that you think most of your audience agrees with, without saying anything they don’t.
What is interesting is that the speech reads more like virtue-signalling than making an argument. Nothing particularly aimed at persuading. Also, I bet someone with the time could find every line or paragraph in a speech given by a major Republican in the last 6 to 8 years.
You beat me by a few minutes on the first point.
On the second point, I noticed that too and concur with your assessment.
Pops was fond of saying: every generation thinks it invented sex. I kinda think every generation of American voter since 1789 has been welcoming clap-trap, pukemaking speeches and making fun of them afterwards. Here’s the parody version of normal political discourse circa FDR’s address. I’m tempted to say that self-parody–Obama and Trump being present-day masters–is an innovation, but I’m pretty sure that’s wrong, too.
And contrary-wise, there are practicing politicians who can bring it when called on.
Were those speeches to be taken seriously? I thought they were parodies.
We ought to stop and consider why politicians give these sorts of speeches, where they play on the fears and concerns of the people they are addressing. Is it because politicians are dishonest and smarmy? Or does the job attract those kinds of people? I submit to you great minds that the latter is more true.
Americans do not want a politician to tell them what he or she is going to accomplish when they get elected. We want the candidate to tell us they are going to do what we want them to do. Giving us specifics is a sure fire way to get us to not vote for them.
Rubio is a prime example. He is a Senator with a record. And that record includes supporting a bill that has specifics about immigration. And we don’t like those specifics. So we now hate him, and all of the progressive, big government, cronyism he now represents.
Maybe it is time for America to grow up, and realize that our politicians owe us their industry, not their allegiance.
You misunderstand me – because I don’t always know how to say what I mean – so that’s my fault.
This is why they write the way they do – most people will not seek Bach out and many won’t stay and listen – but if they catch it, some will stop, Ricochet is an exception.
But what did it take for Bach to make this? Bach’s worldview and education and dedication to craft and genius all combined.
Our politicians and our citizens don’t have the building blocks to create things like this – many lack the awareness to desire them, but when exposed to them are dumbstruck?
So, why don’t we want this and demand it?
I say it’s because we’re too busy or distracted and not aristocratic enough (in the soul) to desire Soli Deo Gloria.
Perhaps, in our democracy, we want them to be like us?
Is that it, we don’t really believe in ourselves?
I’ll say, maybe all my answers and thoughts are totally wrong.
Then it also seems to me that people (most people) seem to want crap. I collect antiques and love to read old books, even the second and third rate stuff and authors and I’ll put them up against any modern.
I think this is a problem in our culture. We (most of us) don’t want quality. When they see quality Joe/Jane average are impressed, but don’t demand it and happily settle for less. Why?
But hasn’t this always been so, (at least politically) we’ve had some really awful politicians in the past. There were plenty of bloviating wind-bags who said nothing in the 19th and 20th centuries, yet I agree we do have a problem.
When I was reading a bunch of old stuff intensely in my teens and twenties, I kept thinking, why don’t we have great modern orators.
I have no answer, but if I’m wrong on all of this – why don’t we expect more?
What do you think?
I’m not sure what you mean here, can you say more?
This is totally random, Claire has challenged my complacent thoughts on this, so I’m not sure.
In my family, my great-grandfather was a dairy farmer, born 1870 died 1962. Mind intact until the end. He was well educated, Slippery Rock College 1889 graduate, then Bucknell 1892. Intelligent, hardworking, not a reader – ficition was against his flavor of Baptist piety. A community and church leader. When he and my great-grandmother faught, she (a shrewd and not very nice woman in many ways) would comment. “Behold, silence everyone, the Great Orator shall now speak (or sometimes) hold forth!”
He knew how to speak in public, it was expected, desired, and admired (and also mocked).
What changed?
I ask you, if not any of the things I said, then what changed?
When we elect someone, we expect them to tell us all the great things they are going to do that we like, and then we expect them to go up and do all those great things we like. But that ain’t how representative democracy works. They are supposed to go up and, when faced with some problem or challenge, do what is best. And they are supposed to work hard (their industry), to make sure the best thing is done. But we want them to do what we want them to do (their allegiance).
Love it!