After posting far too many posts/news articles on my Facebook wall, I suppose it’s time I actually take to real blogging. This post was inspired by a recent article in the Washington Post opinion article written by an English professor at the University of Alabama. I’ve done a pretty thorough search for it, but I can’t find it… If I run into it again, I’ll definitely post it. I’d like to expand on the author’s arguments.
The author introduces his essay with a nice anecdote particularly relevant to college students: he explains that after he graduated from college he was hired for a job at one of the many pay-per-page paper-writing houses. His employer assured him that everything the company did was legal, but one day when he came to work a notice announced that the company was being sued by Harvard for facilitating the diminution of honesty in academia.
From there, the author launches into his indictment of current American campaign politicians in their use of speech writers. The author concedes that candidates may not always have time to write their own speeches, but for big events, like the RNC and DNC, when all eyes are on the candidates, the author contends politicians must write their speeches. If they don’t, Americans can’t be sure that what they’re hearing is really a reflection of a candidate’s beliefs. A perfect example of this is Alaskan Governor Palin’s speech at the RNC. According to the author, Michael Scully, George W. Bush’s speech writer wrote Palin’s speech more than a week before her delivery for an undisclosed male VP pick. McCain surrogates claimed Palin worked extensively with the writer to customize the speech for her, but little of that work was actually evident in her delivery on Wednesday. Her social policy (censoring books, anti-choice, sex education that clearly doesn’t work, hopes to have creationism taught in schools) would likely alienate her in the minds of many voters; not surprisingly, we didn’t hear about any of it.
But the Democrats are hardly innocent either. Obama uses speechwriters (David Axelrod among others) as well, which seems to add weight to the criticisms of conservative pundits that Obama is nothing more than a Black talking head. If I knew nothing about the issues when I saw Obama speak in St. Paul, I’m sure I would have come away believing every word of his speech. He’s incredible. This troubles me because his message could have had nothing to do with his real plans (or lack of plans), and yet I was enticed to vote for him. I mean let’s be honest––trade regulations, support of unions? Sometimes the invisible hand should be left to do its job. Back to the point: Obama could easily defeat the concerns of such conservatives if he wrote his own speeches, thus proving that his thoughts are not just elitist ruminations of an euphonious African American orator.
Maybe Fox writer Betsy Newmark is right in her assertion that good speechwriters capture the voice of the speaker just as well as the speaker him/herself can. It’s an odd sentiment to hear from a high school history/government teacher, especially when we consider the extent to which cheating exists in high school. But it seems that Ms. Newmark doesn’t consider using speechwriters cheating because so many historical figures have used them in the past. If George Washington didn’t write his own speeches, why should today’s politicians? While a valid question, in an election with a candidate who hasn’t yet mastered the internet and another without executive experience, it seems more imperative than ever that politicians show that they are more than placeholders for their respective parties. The stark contrast between the McCain’s policies before and after he campaigned for the Republican nomination (environmentalism especially) highlights this concern.
Even though requiring candidates write their own speeches might not solve the problem of candidates not really speaking their mind, it would be a good step forward in helping Americans better understand candidates in a political landscape spun out of control.
Filed under: Decision '08, VP Special Coverage | Tagged: McCain, Obama, Palin, plagiarism, speechwriter, spin
This is a great point. I think if politicians actually wrote their own speeches, we would get a much less adulterated, and more easily understood, view of their policies.
However, politicians would only agree to it if their opponents agreed to it as well, thus keeping the conditions equalized. Even then they may not both agree to it, as one may be a better orator and speech writer than the other.
I think that the best way to defeat the rampant overuse of ghost writers would be to publicize it heavily. If people knew that the candidates weren’t speaking their own words, I think there could be a backlash, and could actually send the candidates racing in the opposite direction, that of writing their own speeches, if the backlash were strong enough.
But, in the end, candidates really DON’T have enough time to write speeches, as writing a good speech could take hours upon hours, which are very valuable as the candidates squeeze 6+ events into every day, and get very little sleep as it is.
Ideally, the candidates would all write their own speeches, but as with nearly everything else in politics, the reality is far from the ideal.
Really nice piece Soren, I look forward to reading more of your writing!