Slate's Bizbox




the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

John Podhoretz and Michael Waldman

from: John Podhoretz

Grandpa Gore

Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 2:30 PM ET

Michael,

I don't think Clinton is a frivolous man at all; I think he's the greatest politician of our time, greater than Reagan, because he kept getting dealt impossible hands and somehow managed to bluff and outplay everyone. But a pure politician is not a serious man, because he horse-trades his convictions and his views. I would have more respect for Clinton if he were the liberal he really wishes he were, rather than the triangulator he has proved to be.



I wonder if what you say about high rhetoric is true. Perhaps the culture is irony-drenched, but that may be the result of the unseriousness of our politics rather than a cause of it.

I expect that the Gore speech will be hailed as a triumph. All this talk about the speech of his life blah blah blah actually seems to be talking it down. If Gore shows a pulse and a smile, it will be judged a huge success. At the same time, Gore is the worst example of the way '90s politicians knit together the personal and the political--I really did think his exploitation of his son's accident in 1992 and his sister's death in 1996 were among the most repulsive public moments of my lifetime. And he did both in order to make public-policy points and humanize himself at the same time. It's fortunate for him in every sense of the word that he has no more family tragedies to mine, because he would be tempted to do so and it would be disastrous for him. As it is, I expect a lot of talk about his role as a grandfather and what he wants for his born-on-the-Fourth of July grandchild.

It's been a pleasure bantering with you. I'll be filing a column late tonight and on a plane early tomorrow, so this will have to be my goodbye. One day I hope to visit the Clinton Library when the Republicans convene in Little Rock.

from: John Podhoretz

Grandpa Gore

Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 2:30 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
John Podhoretz served as a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan. He's now a twice-weekly columnist for the New York Post and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. Michael Waldman, former director of speechwriting for President Clinton, is the author of the forthcoming POTUS Speaks: Finding the Words That Defined the Clinton Presidency (click here to buy it).
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:




[Reaction to Monday's entry]

Perhaps the reason Gore wants it to be known that he is writing his own speech is that he wants to focus on the content rather than presentation. (Yes, I know that would be revolutionary and possibly seditious.)

As a minor official who has written speeches for others, for myself and occasionally read speeches written by others, I believe the best person to write a speech is the person who best knows what needs to be said (not necessarily the same thing as who knows the most). Gore is trying to say that he is his own man, not mouthing the words others have prepared, and if the result is less felicitous and ear-catching than the work of true professionals, does that really matter?

--David

(To reply, click
here.)


Er, a defendant has a right to a lawyer to defend him because the power of the state is being directed against him. A politician has no right to a speechwriter because the politician is trying to seize the power of the state (at least part of it) and people deserve to know what he/she thinks. We've already got too many courtroom analogies in politics anyway--but just because most politicians ought to be on trial nowadays doesn't mean that they are, in all respects, entitled to the protections that defendants get. Presumption of innocence, for example, exists because the state has the burden of proving someone guilty. But in elections, politicians have the burden of showing themselves worthy. Few in recent experience have met this burden.

--Daniel Webster

(To reply, click
here.)


It's not true that only Lincoln could write his own speeches. So could Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and jumping ahead and across the pond, Churchill and many others. And the issue is not just speeches. Some statesmen have actually been able to craft state papers and diplomatic correspondence themselves.

This is not to say that important documents--and that can include political speeches--should never be collaborative works. Of course they should be. Washington frequently relied on Madison and Hamilton, among others, in his writings. (Of, course, they also were statesmen, not mere scribblers).

The common lament is that modern presidents have too much to do; so overwhelmed are they that they could never write their own speeches or correspondence. This is baloney. Lincoln managed to run a nation at war with a million-man army in the field while managing to write most of his own stuff with the help of a few trusted cabinet members and his two secretaries. And Churchill managed to run a nation at war with bombs falling over his own head, while dictating elaborate memos to colleagues, letters to FDR and other foreign counterparts and speeches to parliament, among other documents. Much of what consumes the modern president's time is a constant stream of photo ops, political meetings and appearances and fundraising

--Publius

(To reply, click
here.)


Anyone who attempts to justify his or her profession by likening it to being a lawyer, as John Podhoretz does, is surely treading in murky ethical waters.

--Jeff Brunswick

(To reply, click here.)


[Reaction to Tuesday's entry]

As all of us who follow politics--including Mr. Podhoretz--know very very well indeed, the same arguments made by Bentsen, Rubin, Tyson, Blinder, Summers, Panetta and company had been previously made to Reagan and Bush by senior Reagan and Bush administration officials like Stockman, Feldstein, Darman, and Shultz. They were correct during the Clinton Administration. They had been correct during the Bush Administration. And they had been correct during the Reagan Administration.

The difference is that--unlike his two predecessors--Clinton had the brains to understand these arguments and the guts to follow through on them.

--Brad DeLong

(To reply, click
here.)


[Reaction to Wednesday's entry]

As a native Los Angeleno, a barbie worshiper, bleached blonde, and a chronic surfer I say to Mr. John Podhoretz:

Welcome to L.A. Now Go Home.

--Candi F.

(To reply, click
here.)





Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions