Fire the Speechwriters

(With Thanks to The Straits Times )
Sep 7, 2009

Save the presidency... Fire the speechwriters

By Matt Latimer

I HAVE made a decent living as a speechwriter over the past decade. So it
might not be in my interest to say this, but here goes: The time has come to
eliminate my job, Mr President. Fire the speechwriters; it might be the only
way to save the presidency.

The age of the Internet and cable news has opened the world to an onslaught
of ideas, opinions and information. It is also stripping away the grandeur -
and power - of the United States presidency. Commanders-in-chief have become
daily, even hourly, television performers, expected to be out yakking in
public on everything, from the death of Michael Jackson to the latest Nascar
champion.

Speechwriters have become enablers, manning an assembly line of recycled
bullet points so presidents can serve as pep-talk-givers, instant reactors,
TV friends. The constant access to television coverage can tempt any
presidential ego, but it is a terrible trap.

There was a time when a president's words could instantly move millions.
Think of John F. Kennedy's call to land on the moon, or Ronald Reagan's
challenge to the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall. Now we hear presidents
so often, they are almost irrelevant.

When I worked at the White House last year, I recalled one commentator
criticising a speech then- President George W. Bush had delivered (and I had
written) about the economy, suggesting that Mr Bush just go away for a while.
And that was one of the kinder reviews.

Yet Bush advisers, particularly Mr Karl Rove, exerted enormous pressure on
him to go out every day to talk about anything - even if no one was
listening. Each year, for example, we were asked to produce three entirely
separate statements to commemorate St Patrick's Day. And we crafted remarks
for so many Hispanic- themed ceremonies that the president finally told his
speechwriters: 'No mas.'

The Hispanic- themed comments were an outgrowth of the administration's push
for comprehensive immigration reform. As the president's proposal became more
controversial, Mr Rove - on one of his over-caffeinated days - persuaded Mr
Bush to give speech after speech, each time hoping that somehow they would
find the magic words to turn things around.

Mr Bush - who, when given a moment to collect his thoughts, could be a
persuasive speaker - was talking so often that his words on the subject lost
their presidential heft. Critics noted that his message seemed muddied and
his arguments contradictory or confusing.

On Afghanistan and Iraq, he was sent out to speak so frequently that he
sometimes ran out of words. I was with him early last year when he offered a
not-exactly-startling assessment about the effort in Afghanistan: 'It's hard
work. It's not easy. It doesn't happen overnight.' For Democrats who think
this could never happen to their guy, here's what Mr Barack Obama said
recently: 'The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight...This
will not be quick, nor easy.'

In Mr Obama's umpteenth statement on the economy last month, he reached for
the granddaddy of all cliches: 'We can see a light at the end of the tunnel.'
Another time, he made this boomerang of a boast about the economy: 'Today
we're pointing in the right direction. We're losing jobs at less than half
the rate we were when I took office.'

On the biggest issue of his presidency yet - health-care reform - Mr Obama is
following his predecessor's example. He keeps re-explaining while his poll
numbers drop. On Wednesday he will offer another health-care speech. Don't
worry if you miss it. There will be another. And another.

Mr Obama has even reverted to his peculiar tendency to refer to the places he
visits as if they are people - 'Inaction is no longer an option, Chicago' or
'Thank you, Montana'. Like a rock band on tour, he is singing the same tune
so often that he has to remind himself where he is.

Mr Obama is smarter than this. On the campaign trail, his speeches, in clear,
coherent English, contrasted with the dreary Washington-speak of Mrs Hillary
Clinton. Even some of us in the Bush White House studied Mr Obama's speeches
and marvelled at their grace.

As a conservative, it might be in my interest to urge the President to hire
even more writers so he can keep droning on - and turn 'yes, we can' to 'yes,
I ramble'. But as an American, I would prefer to protect the presidential
voice. If it is not kept elevated above the idle chatter of the moment, we
may see a future FDR or Reagan deliver an Oval Office address to commemorate
the fifth marriage of Britney Spears.

I realise that eliminating the speechwriting office is a radical measure. It
would be a shock to the system, forcing the President to give more care to
the remarks he delivers, if only because he has to write them himself. No
doubt the pressures on the President to perform for the 24/7 media world will
grow regardless. But the only way to calm such a monster is not to overfeed
it.

So when Mr Obama returns from his holiday this weekend, he should consider
sending his speechwriters on a vacation of their own. A long one.
There was a time when a president's words could instantly move millions...
Now we hear presidents so often, they are almost irrelevant.


The writer was deputy director of speechwriting for former president George
W. Bush.
WASHINGTON POST