John Podhoretz and Michael Waldman
Hard Act To Follow
By John Podhoretz
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000, at 11:53 AM ETMichael,
Well, your old boss was amazing last night--in every sense of the word "amazing."
If the president can indeed be said to have grown in his seven and a half years in office, surely his greatest growth was as a performer and speech-giver. The man who bored Democrats to tears in 1988 and delivered a shockingly uninspiring speech at his nominating convention in 1992 has become a tub-thumping spellbinder in a manner suggestive of the pre-television era. In the 19th century, as you know, people used to spend their Sunday afternoons being entertained by listening to political orators like Edward Everett deliver three-hour stemwinders on the village green. While the president's speech was actually shorter than spokesman Joe Lockhart said it would be in his briefing on Monday--Lockhart figured it would last at least 50 minutes, while the speech came in at around 42--it was as entertaining a political performance as I can remember. Clinton so clearly loved being there, feeding off his worshipful audience and making the case for the triumphs of his own presidency, that the feeling was infectious even for someone like me, who despises him for his rank and breathtaking dishonesty.
At the same time, the speech was amazing for the credit he took for phenomena he himself did not envision, did not plan for, and therefore does not deserve credit for. In 1993, Clinton was forced into holding fast to deficit politics by the quiet insistence of then Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, who explained that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan would feel compelled to respond to the president's neo-Keynesian plans by tightening the money supply--and that the bond markets would respond to Clinton's forcible efforts to grow the economy by spiking in ways dangerous to genuine economic growth. And it was the hostile dynamic between Clinton and the Republican Congress his feckless first two years brought to power that led to the budget deal in 1997 (which, mea culpa, I then thought a bad idea) which brought us the surpluses. And still the president continues to tell lies about what happened in full view only a few years ago--that Republicans wanted to slash Medicare in 1995 when they were only seeking to keep the program's spiraling growth under control.
No, the president did not see the astonishing growth of the high-tech sector and even sought to interpose himself in that growth--which led to the defection of his high-tech support in 1996.
And it was amazing for the fact that the president, the worst character witness in America, used his speech to praise Al Gore's character far more than his qualities as a "partner." He said Gore was a strong leader--surely an effort to boost Gore's disastrous poll numbers on this vital matter--but never gave any evidence of it. Instead, he said Gore was a good man who thought a lot about the future and loved his children, which is very nice, I suppose, but also terrifically patronizing.
Finally, it was amazing because Clinton just set the bar even higher for Gore on Thursday night. The vice president already faced a difficult situation due to the surprising effectiveness of George W. Bush's speech in Philadelphia. Now Gore has to compete with and somehow best Clinton's superb performance, or he will be subjected to commentary in the days that follow about how he didn't quite match the force and power of the president's Monday-night address.
A double-edged sword, that speech last night.
Hard Act To Follow
By John Podhoretz
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000, at 11:53 AM ETJohn 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). 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.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
How Do You Know Whether a Sleepwalking Murderer Was Really Asleep?
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
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.)