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

John Podhoretz and Michael Waldman

Whatever Happened to Rhetoric?

Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 10:45 AM ET

Michael,

I freely confess that it's difficult to judge the quality of speeches with which one disagrees, because they make one angry at perceived distortions, unfair attacks, and the like. But in the case of Joseph Lieberman, I found myself neither angered nor captivated, but instead utterly and completely bored. I have always considered him a wonderful speaker, low-key but passionate. But tonight, watching on TV as opposed to your experience inside the hall, I found him deadly dull and the speech itself really uninspired and uninspiring. The delivery seemed to me to be painfully slow and the rhetoric profoundly unelevated. The partisan stuff was very mild, the praise of Gore very drippy, and the autobiographical stuff bereft of Lieberman's usual attractive modesty.

Maybe you had to be there. I don't really know, and I don't entirely trust my own judgment for ideological reasons. What matters is the response by the public, which we'll know today and Friday when we see the overnight tracking polls.

That said, I want to return to the matter of rhetoric. One of the things I most regret about the Clinton years is the lowering of presidential rhetoric. You said a couple of days ago that Clinton changed things by avoiding the kind of soaring effects that characterized previous presidential speechifying. That's true, though George Bush the Elder started it with his strange staccato speaking style, which made his speechwriters flail about to find a way to capture his tone in prose. They couldn't, and he never gave a good speech after his convention triumph in 1988.

But I like high rhetoric, and not only because I liked writing it for Reagan. I like it because it gives ordinary politics body and nuance. And at its best, it can commit presidents to hold true to their convictions when they are tempted to retreat from them. There were no flourishes in Lieberman's speech, no effort to build to an emotional or policy high. Instead, it seemed almost like he was accepting an Oscar not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the American people.

The speech that I found surprisingly compelling was, amazingly, Karenna Gore Schiff's. Not because it had elevating rhetoric, which it didn't, but because she was so animated and so clearly full of love for her father that the honest emotion was infectious. To be sure, this trend of wives introducing husbands and daughters seconding the nomination of their fathers is sadly indicative of the Oprah-ish trough into which our politics has descended. Even so, speeches are at their best either about conveying feeling or conveying ideas. Karenna conveyed feeling. Lieberman conveyed mostly his own joy at having been chosen to run as vice president, which may be an honest emotion but which means nothing to me and should mean nothing to the American electorate. The presidency is not a reward. It's a job, a leadership position, and it should be approached with gravity.

Humor is, of course, always deeply appreciated, because when it's done well in the course of a serious speech it lightens the gravity at points and allows the audience to take a breath and find some release. It was a profound weakness of your old boss that he could not find a moment to be light of spirit, but I never found it surprising. He's not, in my view, a serious person, so he had to affect seriousness by avoiding humor. When released from the necessity to be serious, as at the correspondents' dinners, he was always at his best.

Again, I'm delighted you enjoyed yourself, because, as my grandmother used to say, you should only be happy. So let me wish you all the happiness of this convention, since I'm not experiencing it at all.

Whatever Happened to Rhetoric?

Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 10:45 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
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).
COMMENTS

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
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
Veterans Day.82/091111_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on the military.55/091111_TC.jpg
Star onboard.73/091111_TD.jpg