John Podhoretz and Michael Waldman
"Wow!"
By Michael Waldman
Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 2:28 PM ETJohn,
Perhaps you're right that Lieberman was more compelling in the hall than on TV.
Watching the speeches from the side of the podium, in the press risers, is a somewhat skewed way to hear a speech. (You could see, for example, that Hadassah Lieberman was reading off a teleprompter when she began her speech, "Wow!")
In my experience, few speakers are good in the hall and on TV at the same time. Ted Kennedy's 1984 speech in San Francisco was rousing in person, as he bellowed red-faced at the crowd. But on the small screen it looked frightening. Reagan, the one time I saw him in person at an American Bar Association meeting in 1985, was a little jarring. From his broad body language, you would think he was addressing a great and enthusiastic crowd, but his voice was a quiet, radio-announcer purr. On TV it was a perfect meshing of heroic picture and pleasing soundtrack. The only speaker I have seen who stunned equally on TV and in person was Mario Cuomo. His 1984 Democratic convention speech was magnificent in the hall, eloquent, powerfully argued, and perfectly pitched for TV too. At one point, he was gesturing for emphasis as he critiqued policies that divided rich from poor. Only looking at it on video later did I realize he had neatly bisected the screen with the sign of the cross.
Again, I liked Lieberman's speech--it was a good vice-presidential speech. (That compliment is not nearly as backhanded as it sounds.) He was supposed to draw contrasts with the GOP, rally the faithful to Gore, and introduce himself to voters. I cannot think of too many vice-presidential speeches that have done more than that.
You raise a good question: Is the era of high rhetoric is over? As we speechwriters say, Let me be clear: I love formal eloquence, too. It inspires and ennobles and can help the country understand itself. It is certainly more fun to write. Clinton is fully capable of delivering eloquence when appropriate. His eulogy for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, was as elegant and idea-driven as one of Reagan's better speeches.
But a practicing politician has to talk in a way that will be truly heard by his audience. Irony-drenched voters, or more accurately viewers, recoil from stagey eloquence. Even Reagan would have a hard time pulling it off today. One reason Clinton's speeches focus so heavily on policy is that that he loves this stuff. One of the critiques of him that I least understand from conservatives is that he is somehow fundamentally frivolous. It sounds like nothing more than the liberal complaint, circa 1979, that Reagan is "just a B-movie actor." I know Clinton pretty well; when it comes to policy and governance, he takes this stuff very seriously. One of the reasons his speeches are so fact-laden is that he is trying to subtly build confidence in government's ability to do things. It's striking that this year is the first presidential election since 1976 where neither candidate is running as a foe of "big guvmint."
Gore has two tough, somewhat inconsistent jobs tonight. Talk about himself, and talk about policy and the country's direction. Bush did it in 1988, and Clinton did it in 1992, but unless it is done well, it can lead to a bisected speech. As I used to tell the speechwriters at the White House, transitions between paragraphs are overrated.
I'm off to a field trip: Some friends and I are going to the Nixon Library--back in time for Gore's speech. As Hadassah Lieberman might say, "Wow!"
"Wow!"
By Michael Waldman
Posted Thursday, Aug. 17, 2000, at 2:28 PM 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.)