John Podhoretz and Michael Waldman
Humor Us
By Michael Waldman
Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 10:36 AM ETJohn,
I'd say the mood is considerably more cheerful tonight. It's always fascinating to watch it happen--the alchemy of a convention, where a candidate or a vice president or some other mortal becomes plausible as a president, has started to take hold. Tonight the cheers for Gore seemed quite heartfelt.
Lieberman's speech was wonderful, I thought. He showed himself to be surprisingly warm, able to convey humanity at a distance. His bemused smile presents a very appealing contrast to Cheney's scowl. His gratitude to America seems very genuine.
I liked two things about it in particular.
First, at the risk of repeating myself, could we be seeing a trend, maybe a trendlet, toward the use of humor in these speeches? I sure hope so. It was always part of what made politics fun. (Roosevelt's speech at the Teamsters in 1944, mocking the Republicans for their charge that he had sent a destroyer to fetch his dog from the Aleutians, probably won him the election. "Fala has not been the same dog since.") Lately there has been precious little of it. I could be wrong, but my old boss didn't use any in his 1996 speech, for example. I'll give credit where it's due: George W.'s mocking of Gore's "risky schemes" was deft and effective. If you notice, you rarely hear anything described as a "risky scheme" this week. Lieberman was, simply, funny.
Second, it's about time someone started attacking Republicans! I say that as a connoisseur, not a partisan, of course. The Democrats simply must persuade the voters that there is something dangerous, or at least wrongheaded, about the Republicans. Otherwise, why not give them a try? The GOP was pretty successful in brushing back the Democrats on this--much as we did to the Republicans in '96. ("Ideas, not insults," we would say.) But it's much deeper. Politicians these days are spooked by the electorate. They worry that voters, especially swing voters, click away from anything partisan. But I think the Democrats simply have no choice. They have to show that there are big stakes in the election, to shake things up, or they won't win. Lieberman began to do this. But he pulled a few punches, too.
Flaws? Perhaps there could have been a bit more of the New Democrat mantra. I think the Democrats should never tire of reminding people that the budget was balanced, welfare reformed, on their watch. And I actually think he underemphasized the cultural conservatism--i.e., the call for values in the media. He and Tipper Gore were real leaders, and it's a very legitimate issue.
And, oh, yes, he's Jewish. The religion issue was touched on appropriately, which is to say, very little. (The music was the theme from Chariots of Fire--nice.) I was sitting in the press riser, so I had to resist any temptation to rise and cheer, but I couldn't help feeling very moved by the moment. It wasn't just the sight of thousands of people waving signs that read "Hadassah." When Gore picked Lieberman, I reacted with jittery surprise, as did so many Jews--but that was overcome very quickly by pride and a bit of wonder. More than the abstract momentousness of it, I was especially moved by the sight of many of my Jewish friends from the White House, who were peeking around the side of the platform, looking very proud. My fellow Americans, L'chaim!
Humor Us
By Michael Waldman
Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 10:36 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
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.)