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
I don’t see how this tension is new though?
I also don’t understand why we shouldn’t expect them to stand firm on some principals and some issues? Should we also seek consensus or compromise? Doesn’t this in approach risk leading to the ever growing leviathan many of us see crushing us directly and indirectly. This desire to do something? I’m being overly simplistic, but then I think your argument is as well.
Also, if you think your view is right and your opponents wrong, in some cases seeking accommodation, through compromise is the worst option, no?
Thanx. As an afterthought: I get why saying nothing–badly–is normally a political advantage. I just don’t get how the best speech of the campaign season just finds the giver riding the dog back home. If Mr. Rick looked out the bus window at a passing semi, remembered a joke about truck drivers*, and thought that the voters all have their names on their belts, he could be forgiven.
*why do truck drivers all have their names on their belts? So that when they pull their heads out of their rear-ends they’ll know who they are.
My goodness that was a good speech, and the first time I’ve ever read it, or heard of it. It could have been polished in a few areas for my taste, but it was quite powerful and specific. We have a severe problem in our republic.
Preach it, brother Ryan!
And yet if you listen to many on the right, Paul Ryan is a RINO squish.
Nothing to add on our pols’ inability to issue speech from first principles and make it stick. So, more LT Higgins, because awesomeness should be celebrated.
Thanks, Claire. As if my cynicism about American politics and Washington culture wasn’t already high enough, you’ve caused my cynicism to achieve orbit.
I’d contend that it is Rubio, Bush et al. who are selling snake oil. Particularly when it comes to something like Syria. There are so many false assumptions in the policy they would have towards Syria it is mind boggling. They would consider the Saudis and Turkey as allies. They would consider Isis to be a bug of Islam when it is a feature. They would consider what Russia is doing benefits Iran when it doesn’t. Syria brought the Russians in to supplant the Iranians because of what the Iranians were doing in Syria. They would consider those driven out of Aleppo as being moderates when they aren’t. And on and on.
You are still captive to the gravitation of politics. As are we all-
I swear I will leave this solar system! I swear I will!
& I promise, politics is gonna be more reasonable!
How does Russia’s support for Assad not help Assad’s owners? Are you under the impression that Iran is no longer fighting for Assad? How is ISIS a feature? I don’t know how many of the FSA you’ve spoken to, but those I’ve spoken to have been pretty moderate, and they have an impressive track record for avoiding atrocities (not counting atrocities exclusively reported by Russian and Iranian sources).
Regardless, this isn’t what Claire is talking about; you’re disagreeing about the details. Claire is talking about the way that a candidate might, for instance, make reference to nuking Syria (“make the sand glow”), to “carpet bombing” Syria, and to avoiding interfering with Syria, all in the same speech. Obviously he wouldn’t nuke Syria, even he says that what he means by carpet bombing isn’t carpet bombing (it’s “targeted”). It’s a collection of poll tested slogans from which no policy can be derived. Likewise, Trump’s statements about hiring the best generals and assaulting ISIS “firmly” aren’t policies; you can’t disagree with his policy because there’s no there there.
The term of art is “nuke ’em till they glow in the dark.”
I’m not really talking about principles. I’m talking about specific policies.
The American voter is overly simplistic. Take Rubio. Now, regardless of your position or my position on immigration, anyone with a brain can tell you how the son of Cuban immigrants is going to view immigration. Now, when he got involved in “gang of eight”, he no doubt thought he was doing the right thing. But all of us either see it as him selling us all out, or pandering to hispanics to get votes, or secretly trying to usher in the NEoBG(New Era of Big Government). It can’t possibly be that when he looked at the current situation, that he thought this was the right thing to do, at that time. And we don’t want that to be it. Because what we want is a BGPS (Big, Giant, Pontificating Speech) about how turrible turrbile the illegal Mexicans are, and how by golly “I’m gonna put a stop to it.” I hold up as evidence Donald Trump. We don’t want nuance. We don’t want rational. We want them to tell use they are going to do exactly what we want them to do. And when they don’t, which we secretly know they won’t, then we can sit and whine about it.
Long story short: this is the system we asked for. It is what we want. (I use the term “we” to reference the American electorate as a whole)
And I suppose that our opposition to that can’t be that we just disagree with his assessment?
Then for someone who somehow benefits, it must be a feature and not a bug.
As opposed to…and as opposed to when…and if so why…and what does that mean?
Really? I do not think that is true.
I’ve know and have known the sons and daughters of immigrants and they hold a variety of positions on immigration.
The point is he campaigned on position A, and very quickly was involved with position B.
So, he lied to get elected holding another view that he held in secret because he couldn’t be honest and be elected, but one that matters to both his constituents and to his future political prospects.
Isn’t this what we must start from to think about this phenomenon. The lying politician who can’t write a good speech?
You’ve proven my point.
You can suppose that if you want. This is not an anti-Rubio thread, so if you’d like to have that discussion, let’s go on over to one of the many. Well, you go on ahead, I’ll catch up later.
But, here’s my point: disagree with him on what has to be done. Disagree with him on the nature of the problem and the solution. Disagree with him on the nuances of his proposed policies. That’s perfectly fine. But we don’t disagree with him; we despise him. We’ve written him off. He’s a liar. He’s a turncoat. He’s the establishment. He’s everything that is wrong with the Republican party. He’s not conservative. That is what we do to politicians who do things we think are wrong. And that is why they give vague speeches.
These speeches are superhero movies and New Coke. They’re Iggy Azalea covering a Katy Perry song on Adam Sandler’s Zune in a Michael Bay movie.
All those things are the product of finding what “the people” want; they’re pabulum that gets churned out according to a poll-tested, focus-grouped formula that equates the blind following of survey results with scientific rigor.
Nolan’s Batman movies worked, so people must only want superhero movies. Pepsi’s beating Coke in (flawed) taste tests, so we should make Coke more like Pepsi.
In response to the momentary success of one thing, everyone else who doesn’t have an original idea of their own jumps on the bandwagon – Frankenstein-ing together a pastiche of whatever could be scraped off the edges of actual success.
The problem with that, of course, is that people don’t actually know what they want until they see it. No number of focus groups in 2002 could have given you a blueprint for the iPhone. No amount of surveys of the public in 2010 would have told you how to start Uber.
And similarly, you can’t mix eye of Newt (Gingrich) and powdered corpse of Reagan to magically create the next GOP winner, nor can a vat-grown chimera of Woodrow Wilson and FDR win the Democratic Primary (well, unless it’s up against Hillary). To experience true success, political or otherwise, you must create novelty, not merely plagiarize success.
Preach it!
These speeches are so much filler. They’re a meme transplant from someone who actually meant what they said to someone who saw the success of their message and wanted to repeat it. Echoes off the inside of an empty skull and and empty heart. Speechwriters are hired to produce this political tofu so that a politician always has something to say.
But too many candidates have bought into the notion that those speechwriters are actually crafting a campaign message for them. Clearly the authors of this article believe that they have the power to sell the citizenry on style without substance. And as long as there’s no real substance on the market, they theoretically can.
But you can’t create inspiration and voter confidence ex nihilo. And if you try to create the “next”…whatever, you will just end up re-creating that same old same old. Regrettably, when you do that for too long, fools like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders seem novel, fresh, and inspiring – by comparison, anyway.
The Sam Phillips speech from Walk The Line also explains a lot of what is missing:
If this is the most important election since whenever and you believe that you, and only you, are what stands between us and whatever’s coming, convince me that you believe either of those two things. Isn’t that what running for president is all about?
As if anyone could ever answer that question. Bach was a miracle. Any attempt to explain how it happened always somehow comes down to that.
Fair enough, and more than fair — correct. I took the shortcut and didn’t explain my thinking, which is that implicitly, when we listen to these stump speeches (or when I do, anyway), we’re asking ourselves “What does this speech say to me about this man’s ability to handle such a grave emergency?”
Uh, uh. He’s my second choice. I just don’t think he’s God’s gift to us.
Respectfully as I can be, rubbish.
There were hundreds of musical geniuses running around Europe c.1704. Bach wrote plenty of stinkers. There are plenty of better works by his “lesser” contemporaries worth exploring and performing. I’ve played Bach’s stinkers for organ, he wasn’t a miracle, he was a human being. He also wrote some of the towering works of western Art music, and plenty of works in between noble, tuneful, erudite, but not miracles.
Was he a genius, absolutely, so therefore we have nothing to learn from him or to gain by understanding his creative process, or the culture that formed his talents, tastes, and skills?
He also hated admitting his debt to predecessors.
Bach was driven to perfect his talents, he was a craftsman first and foremost, he said so himself. His genius may be a fact, but there was a reason there were giants in those days, it is a mistake to elevate a handful of composers above the rest at all times and in all ways. Does this diminish his unique achievements, absolutely not.
Perhaps romanticism is why we don’t have great political speeches, we have failed to make quality a culture wide project, not solely the work of miracle workers, and we’ve simultaneously romanticised the electorate into impotence.
That’s sort of the way I approach Stalin and Hitler, and why I don’t consider Stalin and Hitler comparisons to be beyond the pale. They came from the same DNA pool as the rest of us, had the same reasoning ability as the rest of us, and were subject to the same temptations as all of us. They weren’t one-off exceptions that have nothing in common with present-day political processes and temptations.
One difference, though, is that if for the rest of my life I could listen to only one composer’s work, it would be Bach’s. I would not choose Stalin’s or Hitler’s governments to live under if I had to choose one system.
But in all three cases, they were of the same world that the rest of us live in.
I totally agree.
I stress this to my students, Hitler wasn’t some unique madhouse evil genius – he was a talented, evil man who was driven to do what he did. He was a genius, and he fit perfectly into a certain political moment in history, but he worked for what he got, and his like will walk the earth again, is walking the earth, and will strive to do it again, albeit in a slightly different manner.
As my grandfather always said if he caught me gushing about someone or complaining:
He pulls his pants on one leg at a time, just like you do.
Bach would be on the list for the desert island, so would Handel, and about 59 others.
It’s like Bardolatry, you think Shakespeare is so great, yes, there’s Hamlet and Lear, but there is also Henry VI, Timon, and Cymbeline.
Henry VI, particularly pts. 2 & 3, Timon, and Cymbeline are great plays. I’ve been to a half dozen productions of Cymbeline, and never had a bad one. I’ve an ex-girlfriend who used refer to it as “our play”, but Mrs. Of England enjoys it, too. Timon is a middle class Lear, and isn’t so consistent in its productions, but an orthodox production of Timon is a very fine thing indeed. A particular favorite production was performed by a homeless cast, one of which I talked to on the way out of the theater and explained, plausibly, that he had zero idea what many of the words he’d been saying meant, but had nonetheless been able to put the emotion into them that he’d been told.
Hitler was pretty unusual, too. One can go too far in defeating that conventional wisdom, although I recognize that you walk the judgment back a bit.