Originally published on the CGS blog on September 8, 2007.
Last week I was chatting with the Global Interdependence Initiative’s Director and occasional Switchblog contributor, David Devlin-Foltz, over lunch about global issues advocacy. (Quick aside. If you haven’t done so already, treat yourself and read GII’s Switchblog, “where global issues, advocacy, and messaging meet.”) We discussed at some length the challenges of presidential speechwriting and Matthew Scully’s recent revelatory Atlantic Monthly piece, “Present at the Creation,” about President Bush’s former chief speechwriter/advisor, and everyone’s favorite “compassionate conservative” Washington Post columnist Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, Michael Gerson . Regardless of your partisan political leanings, the piece provides a fascinating look into the sausage-making-like world of presidential speechwriting.
Long story short regarding Scully’s depiction of Michael Gerson: if you’re a Gerson supporter and believe he’s a “muse” and the greatest presidential speechwriter ever or at least since Theodore Sorensen, don’t waste your time reading it; if you’re a Gerson detractor who thinks him a phony evangelist, revel in it; if you don’t care about, or know of, Gerson, the article is an interesting look into the presidential speeechwriting fraternity.
Here’s the thing, no matter how you feel about Michael Gerson and President Bush, you probably recognize that the President has delivered (no matter how inarticulately at times) some very well-crafted speeches over the past six years. In fact Gerson, Scully and John McConnell by all accounts have crafted some historical addresses, but I beg you, please, please don’t compare their work to the Kennedy-era classics of Ted Sorensen . If you can’t take my word for it, why not take Scully’s? In describing the appropriate position and role of the presidential speechwriter, Scully states:
That’s where presidential speechwriters belong?off to the side, where even the best there ever was, Ted Sorensen, was always content to stay. Speechwriting is a job with many privileges, but also its own rules, temptations, and demands of conscience, obvious and nonnegotiable. The work has rewards enough without each speechwriter stepping forward to give his or her name its own permanent shine in history.
As fate would have it, immediately after my chat with David, I happened upon a recent video of Ted Sorensen on the Charlie Rose Show. (A speechwriter like Gerson might say it was god’s will, an act of providence, or divine intervention that I found the video. Being the philistine that I am, I would call it dumb luck of the web surfing variety.) Most of the 25-minute interview is dedicated to discussion about Sorensen’s recent article-in-the-form-of-a-speech (or speech-in-the-form-of-an-article) for The Washington Monthly. In “The New Vision,” Sorensen steps out from the wings and once again puts pen to paper, or finger to keyboard, in an effort to craft the speech he would most want the next Democratic nominee to give at the party convention in Denver, regardless of who he or she is. Not surprisingly, it’s Kennedy/Sorensen-like in that it doesn’t sacrifice pragmatism or idealism on the altar of the other. It’s lofty and soaring and earthy and grounded all at once. And while it’s written for a Democrat, there’s more than one traditional internationalist Republican that could/should deliver just such a speech (with a tweak here and there, as well as the obligatory references to The Great Communicator.) Oh yeah, and it’s shorter and more succinct than the speeches of the last Democratic president without losing any of the impact. Trust me, read the article/speech. Kick it up a notch and read it in the voice of your favorite past, present, or future candidate. (I would suggest employing your inner voice, but outright impersonation is okay within one’s home as long as no one else is around.) Sorensen makes you appreciate great speechwriting.
In terms of Sorensen’s policy prescriptions, I’d like to highlight two–specifically, the third and fourth on his list:
Third, I shall as soon as possible transfer all inmates out of the Guantanamo Bay prison and close down that hideous symbol of injustice.
Fourth, I shall fly to New York City to pledge in person to the United Nations, in the September 2009 General Assembly, that the United States is returning to its role as a leader in international law, as a supporter of international tribunals, and as a full-fledged member of the United Nations which will pay its dues in full, on time, and without conditions, renouncing any American empire; that we shall work more intensively with other countries to eliminate global scourges, including AIDS, malaria, and other contagious diseases, massive refugee flows, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and that we will support the early dispatch of United Nations peacekeepers to halt the atrocities in Darfur. I shall make it clear that we do not covet the land of other countries for our military bases or the control of their natural resources for our factories. I shall make it clear that our country is not bound by any policies or pronouncements of my predecessor that violate international law or threaten international peace.
Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that both the Democratic and Republican candidates will support these very important prescriptions in the name of national security and responsible global citizenship. However, let’s not hold our collective breath…
Skilled and respected presidential speechwriters from Sorensen to the “three-headed monster” of Scully, Gerson and McConnell, don’t create policy or project themselves into speeches. They help them find their voices. They craft speeches that reflect the personality, beliefs, and values of their boss. So here’s to hoping that there’s a candidate in the presidential field whose personal values and beliefs resemble those embodied in Sorensen’s speech, and will challenge a new generation of speechwriters to help him/her convey those ideas in his/her own voice.
