"Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books, and there is some evidence that they can't read them either."
- Gore Vidal, US writer
Never at a loss for words that will offend someone, Vidal nevertheless provides an opening to look briefly behind the political curtain.
Political speech writing is not what it used to be. In the days before television was embedded inside people's brains and the 20-second soundbite almost daily ruled the political world, speeches were written to rouse a live audience in a hall or a park.
In those days, the objective was to say enough hopeful and patriotic things that the crowd would be cheering (it didn't matter for what--the flag was always a good topic if nothing else presented itself) as the candidate left the staging area.
Today's political speeches are either vehicles for propaganda or they are enhanced commercials (but I repeat myself). Their message (each speech has one primary objective) is presented professionally. The politicians attend special courses, taught by professional speaking coaches, to learn how to speak most effectively.
The speeches themselves are written by propagandists. Speechwriters often come from the ranks of advertising agencies or broadcasting commentary programs. During his first term in office, President Bush's main speech writer was a Canadian professor, journalist, the son of a prominent former Canadian ambassador to Washington. Today that man is eying the leadership of a Canadian political party, and will no doubt become Prime Minister if he achieves the leadership.
Political candidates and leaders don't have either the time or the skills to write their own speeches. Their most important skills are schmoozing and making promises they have every intention of forgetting later (and blaming someone else for it).
Political leaders are, in a real sense, puppets who spout what their party needs to be said. The larger the country they represent, the more realistic this statement is. Presidents Bush and Putin (of Russia), for examples, owe much to those who have the power to get them re-elected in the next vote. And those who can get their proposed legislation passed today.
Political parties, at least the larger ones, are animals (a large carnivore). Their ethics are determined by what will keep them in power and what will keep them in the grace of their people. Power is of primary importance, with money following in second place (its significance determined by the needs of the day). They eat more than they need.
Those who do not write their own speeches do not say what they really mean. They say what those who hire and pay the speech writers want said. They keep their complaints, their gripes and their plans for vengeance for private moments with those they trust (who could usually be counted on one or two thumbs).
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to make reality look more like the truth.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
To be fair, though, "a conglomerate of special interests" is what government is at the best of times in a democracy. Those who don't have a vested interest in something that is (or could be) going on, don't participate.
That's why we get results that reflect the most powerful of the special interests instead of the most common of general interests.
When good and fair people don't participate in some way, those with special interests rule the day.
I do admire Gore Vidal's wicked wit.
You are absolutely correct. We managed to overcome the persuasive forces that promoted physical slavery. More of us need to speak up so that we can overcome the persuasive forces that make us emotional slaves.
We have to start somewhere. The situation becomes hopeless only when people refuse to begin the process.
I am from a family that required questioning social/governmental issues, and institutionalized ideas. For years I wondered why so few people I met did the same.
I was in my thirties before I realized that it is far more common to raise children to conform into non questioning producers. This is done by families, churches, schools, and of course the workplace. Fit in or get out seemed to be the message.
The Republican Party has taken this to the level of religion, conform or go.
Remember to read George Corneliussen's GeorgeDavid recent articles on similar topics.
Bill please accept my apology for the trouble I am having posting links into comments, I must learn!
Following is easy because you don't have to think for yourself. However, followers never know where they are being led because they never question anything.
You are quite correct about the forces that teach conformity. Churches and political parties may enforce this message strongest. Neither allows much room for divergent opinions.
Cena, your comments are so insightful...As I read them I realized that we are a society that encourages mind control throughout our lives from a multitude of directions. And unfortunately, this produces people who can't think for themselves. In this respect, I can't help but remember the Russ Limbaugh show, which was on the only station I could get on my car radio at one time. If I heard it once, I heard it a dozen times, with respect to whatever issue was being discussed: "Please, Russ, tell me what to think." ................ I kid you not........(and if you figure out that link thing, Cena, I'd sure like to know how you do it.)
Modern society is indeed taught to leave the thinking to others. But then, once small societies passed the tribal stage this has been the case. Even within tribes individual thinking is sometimes discouraged.
That president who could write his own speeches did not, most of the time that he was president because he didn't have time. He writes excellent speeches, but a president does not have time to craft speeches the way that man does now. Last year he was paid $250,000 for a one hour speech in the UAE.
He was one of the most misunderstood and underappreicated presidents in US history. The world was a much safer place on his watch.
Bill, I don't think the people who voted for him misunderstood, and if he could run again he would be re-elected.
David here is a link to the gather article on using html in comments.
I now can make it work, Bill's article is the first I tried to link.
Sandy and I have not been able to get the photo instructions to work, but thinks like bold and HTML in Comments are easy.
I had trouble because it is necessary to put the code in perfectly.
The article was written by Kevin V of gather, he does note that these techniques will not work in articles.
I do believe he won in 2000, but I believe there wouldn't have been ANY doubt that he'd won if he'd have just been able to be his charming, clever, funny self. (sorry...I still don't "blame" him for rolling his eyes in the second debate..I could hardly believe the crap that was coming from his opponent either.)
As to the "teaching our kids to conform". This is one of my pet peeves.
Although it is painful at time, I feel that it is your duty as a parent to teach them to question. Not only does it make you a better parent when you have to answer to them on a daily basis, but it makes them see that authority is to be respected if it is acting respectable.
I never will get the idea that some parent's tell their kids not to succumb to peer pressure,(which is ridiculous on it's face since most parents are succumbing to it.), AND THEN tell them that they have to conform to society. It's like smacking a kid to teach them to stop hitting. Makes no sense.
ok why doesn't kevin's directions work for me?
But the "press" has never liked him, from way back when he first ran for office. Remember they dubbed him the "prince."
Jerry Brown, while off the track a bit still has good ideas, and was competent, and probably insisted on writing some of his own speeches. His reward: "Governor Moonbeam."
Anyway..I know..the press has always had a problem with Gore. I guess it's because he is from a very wealthy family and is privileged. I think that it disturbs the powers that be when people don't fall into their acceptable catagories. Complicated people threaten the status quo. Kerry had the same issues, IMO, with the press. I like the person who appreciates NUANCE. Gore is in that catagory, IMO.
I also like Jerry Brown. Again, doesn't fit in the mold they want him to fit in. I"ve heard Imus attacking Dennis Kucinich lately too. (like Imus is such a brain trust.) I think it is the same thing. They don't conform, so they must be nutcases. Its a sickness in our society.
You do realize your comments about Gore are so similar to what Sandy had said in her reunion article. But I should have been more careful.
Sandy and I have known each other for a LONG time, and have similar thoughts about most things political....but not all. (still not big on Hilary, sorry Sandy.) We also have an "Al Gore thing" It think it may be one of the things that initially brought us together. Sorry for the hijacking....back on subject.
Don't you think that thinking outside the box is something that can be taught just as well as conforming? What are your thoughts on striking a balance when trying to raise children.
New question.
How do you think we could convince pols that we would really rather hear the from the heart speeches than the post polled, prefabed crap that we end up getting?
Strange as it seems the elected officials are still sensitive to letters from constituents, not the mass mailed issue drives, but real letters.
I suppose the best tactic would be to ask them to present more of their own ideas.
Bill says some don't write because of the time issue, and some aren't very skillful at preparing a message. That is part of it.
Of course the other part is that the party wants to protect a candidate from making a big no,no. statement.
The party will also want to be certain that all the bases are covered, or to keep the focus on just a few key issues.
No one is allowed to make a mistake.
Perhaps we should instead write the news organizations and urge them to allow candidates to reveal more of their personal views and not jump on every word and statement as if it were a world changing issue.
Now, his performance in front of the desk in the Oval Office...no opinion. It's not one of my personal preferences.
Nor is anyone allowed to change their mind or (heaven forbid) admit to having been less than perfect in the past.
You are correct, Cena, that it is easier to reach candidates or elected representatives than it is to influence news media. The Fourth Estate, they believe, was annointed by God. They are beyond reach.