By Dan Gerstein
After taking note on Tuesday of the near total absence of pre–State of the Union hype this year, we canvassed a number of our fellow speech pros to get a bead on what was behind this unusual lack of buzz. In particular, we wanted to know whether the ho-humness of the 2012 edition was an indication that our Super Bowl was losing its mojo—or whether it was just a matter of today's political moment.
The consensus take: it was the circumstances, not the pomp.
Most of the pros we consulted pointed first to the circus attraction/distraction of the Republican presidential campaign. Or, as Vital Speeches guru David Murray explained: "Because Newt Gingrich isn’t going to have the chance to stand next to the president smirking, and he doesn’t get to punch the president in the face. The politics-consuming public is addicted to the violence of these twice-weekly Republican brawls, and the prospect of watching the president shadowbox for an hour—meh. And then a thoughtful, articulate televised response by Mitch Daniels? Please."
Former Clinton speechwriter Heather Hurlburt said she wasn't surprised that this SOTU did not generate much heat, pointing to the all the political and policy news that was breaking in the run-up to speech night and sucking up most of the commentariat's attention. "Consider that this week you had the South Carolina primary Saturday, the GOP debate Monday, the SOTU Tuesday, a GOP debate Thursday, and the rollout of the first Pentagon budget cut in a decade Thursday. Oh, and a carrier sailing through the Straits of Hormuz," Hurlburt added. "It’s like holding the Super Bowl during the Olympics."
Another significant factor, our pros noted, was the White House's conscious strategy of downplaying this year's speech and not leaking out new policy tidbits to pump up the Beltway hype machine. Again, D.C.-based pro Michael Freeman said, this was predictable, given the current budgetary and political environment, which is not exactly hospitable to buzz-worthy ideas. "Obama cannot, no matter how determined he may be, get an initiative of any meaningful scope through this Congress," Freeman explained. "If he offers ideas of magnitude, the words are hollow because the proposals can't go anywhere. If he sticks to things he can get done, we're in Bill Clinton V-Chip territory. Yawn."
But our experts did see one troubling larger trend at work: the corrosive effect of the widespread anger at and frustration with Washington. "Cynicism is carrying the day," said Freeman, who served as chief speechwriter at the Social Security Administration. "Congress's approval ratings are nearing single digits. Obama's are mired below 50. There's no confidence that anything said in the SOTU is going to dramatically change the state of play in America." Added Hurlburt: "Not just the SOTU, but
do all the performance rituals of Washington matter less to a country
and media that sees them all as equally compromised, empty, and
meaningless? Maybe."
Gerstein is President of Gotham Ghostwriters and a regular political analyst on Fox News.
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Two Cheers for the State of the Union
By Robert Lehrman
Even Richard M. Nixon rebelled.
This pragmatic president told his speechwriters in 1970 that he didn’t want the traditional “laundry list” State of the Union speech. No “pragmatism,” he insisted. “I want an idea speech.”
At one point, Nixon put his feet on the desk and said, “Good God. Agriculture in a State of the Union isn’t worth a damn.”
He wasn’t the only one who disliked the 222-year tradition that President Barack Obama carries on Tuesday night.
It’s common for a president’s enemies to skewer what we now call SOTU—“platitudes, platitudes, platitudes,” one described Obama’s last year.
But plenty of others hate it, too. And for the usual reasons—it’s:
Dishonest: No matter the real state of the union, presidents always assert it’s strong. Despite the economy, Obama said those very words (“our union is strong”) in 2010, saying he’d “never been more hopeful.”
Dumbed down: One academic has blasted the SOTU for abandoning the complex language of George Washington—about the reading level of a college graduate—for the language of grade-school kids. Last year, Obama’s was rated 8.7. (This op-ed? 8.0.)
Theatrical: “Policy demands packaged in pomp and circumstance,” writes one blogger. The ceremonial parade in, the scripted applause lines, the saccharine tributes to guests in the balcony. That’s a lot of pomp.
Endless: One White House speechwriter asked his mom for advice before writing one. “Keep it short,” she said. Washington’s was 1,087 words—a few hundred longer than this piece. In 2000, Clinton’s was 7,452. Last year? 6,800.
There are other complaints: partisanship, a disgracefully short opposition response and, yes, platitudes. So should we all ignore what Obama says on Tuesday? No.
The fact is, this imperfect tradition deserves two cheers, at least. It is—gasp!—useful. Anyone listening or reading on Tuesday can learn a lot. Because the speech is a:
Guide for what’s ahead: Like movie trailers, the State of the Union previews what will happen. Really. In the past 50 years, presidents averaged about 36 requests per SOTU. Even with divided governments, about 41 percent on average become law. Disregard the platitudes. Find the policy. Like Waldo—it’s there.
Statement of broad themes: The address lays out big themes that divide the country. Woodrow Wilson, who restored the SOTU to oratory rather than a written message, did it partly to show he was as vigorous as his Rough Rider predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt. He also did it because he believed in activist government—calling for things that left even Democrats aghast. Obama will also outline ways he favors activist government, setting the stage for next fall’s debate.
Blueprint Americans can understand: Is the reading level of today’s SOTU too low? Not if you think most of the 40 million or so Americans tuning in deserve to grasp it. Americans average a seventh-grade level. Four out of ten Americans would have trouble reading even last year’s speech. How many more should we cut out? Really, that most Americans will be able to watch, read—and understand—Tuesday night’s speech is a virtue.
Sometimes a really historic document: Most of the 220 SOTUs aren’t worth reading now. But some are, and for good reason. Take 1822, when President James Monroe announced what’s now called the Monroe Doctrine. Or 1941, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled the Four Freedoms.
Or 1961, when a speechwriter named Ralph Williams wrote a line that President Dwight Eisenhower liked. Now Ike’s most memorable line is that warning about the “military-industrial complex.”
And that laundry list?
“People like laundry lists,” says former chief Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet, who helped write several SOTUs.
Why? For the same reason Civil War soldiers, who originated the phrase, started making them: to keep track of clothes they needed back from the cleaners. Sometimes we need a list of the tasks ahead—even if the prose needs work.
Back in 1970, White House speechwriters were frantically trying to give their anti-laundry list boss what he wanted. Against drugs in theory, the administration let White House doctors give speechwriter Ray Price the drug many anti-war activists loved: speed. After two amphetamine-fueled all-nighters, Price saw the result. His desk appeared both in front of him—and against the far wall. Luckily, a young aid Richard Blumenthal, now a Democratic senator from Connecticut—saw him safely home.
“It was unsettling,” Price said.
When Blumenthal takes his seat in the House chamber Tuesday night, expect him to draw on decades of experience to examine Obama’s version of America’s laundry list. We should, too.
Because buried inside the sentences and paragraphs of chaff, we’ll find what, in 1970, Nixon wanted: ideas.
Maybe even about agriculture.
Robert Lehrman served as a White House chief speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore. He is author of The Political Speechwriter’s Companion and an adjunct professor at American University, where he teaches speechwriting, and co-runs the blog Punditwire. This article originally appeared in Politico.
Even Richard M. Nixon rebelled.
This pragmatic president told his speechwriters in 1970 that he didn’t want the traditional “laundry list” State of the Union speech. No “pragmatism,” he insisted. “I want an idea speech.”
At one point, Nixon put his feet on the desk and said, “Good God. Agriculture in a State of the Union isn’t worth a damn.”
He wasn’t the only one who disliked the 222-year tradition that President Barack Obama carries on Tuesday night.
It’s common for a president’s enemies to skewer what we now call SOTU—“platitudes, platitudes, platitudes,” one described Obama’s last year.
But plenty of others hate it, too. And for the usual reasons—it’s:
Dishonest: No matter the real state of the union, presidents always assert it’s strong. Despite the economy, Obama said those very words (“our union is strong”) in 2010, saying he’d “never been more hopeful.”
Dumbed down: One academic has blasted the SOTU for abandoning the complex language of George Washington—about the reading level of a college graduate—for the language of grade-school kids. Last year, Obama’s was rated 8.7. (This op-ed? 8.0.)
Theatrical: “Policy demands packaged in pomp and circumstance,” writes one blogger. The ceremonial parade in, the scripted applause lines, the saccharine tributes to guests in the balcony. That’s a lot of pomp.
Endless: One White House speechwriter asked his mom for advice before writing one. “Keep it short,” she said. Washington’s was 1,087 words—a few hundred longer than this piece. In 2000, Clinton’s was 7,452. Last year? 6,800.
There are other complaints: partisanship, a disgracefully short opposition response and, yes, platitudes. So should we all ignore what Obama says on Tuesday? No.
The fact is, this imperfect tradition deserves two cheers, at least. It is—gasp!—useful. Anyone listening or reading on Tuesday can learn a lot. Because the speech is a:
Guide for what’s ahead: Like movie trailers, the State of the Union previews what will happen. Really. In the past 50 years, presidents averaged about 36 requests per SOTU. Even with divided governments, about 41 percent on average become law. Disregard the platitudes. Find the policy. Like Waldo—it’s there.
Statement of broad themes: The address lays out big themes that divide the country. Woodrow Wilson, who restored the SOTU to oratory rather than a written message, did it partly to show he was as vigorous as his Rough Rider predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt. He also did it because he believed in activist government—calling for things that left even Democrats aghast. Obama will also outline ways he favors activist government, setting the stage for next fall’s debate.
Blueprint Americans can understand: Is the reading level of today’s SOTU too low? Not if you think most of the 40 million or so Americans tuning in deserve to grasp it. Americans average a seventh-grade level. Four out of ten Americans would have trouble reading even last year’s speech. How many more should we cut out? Really, that most Americans will be able to watch, read—and understand—Tuesday night’s speech is a virtue.
Sometimes a really historic document: Most of the 220 SOTUs aren’t worth reading now. But some are, and for good reason. Take 1822, when President James Monroe announced what’s now called the Monroe Doctrine. Or 1941, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled the Four Freedoms.
Or 1961, when a speechwriter named Ralph Williams wrote a line that President Dwight Eisenhower liked. Now Ike’s most memorable line is that warning about the “military-industrial complex.”
And that laundry list?
“People like laundry lists,” says former chief Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet, who helped write several SOTUs.
Why? For the same reason Civil War soldiers, who originated the phrase, started making them: to keep track of clothes they needed back from the cleaners. Sometimes we need a list of the tasks ahead—even if the prose needs work.
Back in 1970, White House speechwriters were frantically trying to give their anti-laundry list boss what he wanted. Against drugs in theory, the administration let White House doctors give speechwriter Ray Price the drug many anti-war activists loved: speed. After two amphetamine-fueled all-nighters, Price saw the result. His desk appeared both in front of him—and against the far wall. Luckily, a young aid Richard Blumenthal, now a Democratic senator from Connecticut—saw him safely home.
“It was unsettling,” Price said.
When Blumenthal takes his seat in the House chamber Tuesday night, expect him to draw on decades of experience to examine Obama’s version of America’s laundry list. We should, too.
Because buried inside the sentences and paragraphs of chaff, we’ll find what, in 1970, Nixon wanted: ideas.
Maybe even about agriculture.
Robert Lehrman served as a White House chief speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore. He is author of The Political Speechwriter’s Companion and an adjunct professor at American University, where he teaches speechwriting, and co-runs the blog Punditwire. This article originally appeared in Politico.
The State of the State of the Union (Part I)
By Dan Gerstein
Over the last few years we have had much fun partaking in the pre-game chatter around the State of the Union with our fellow speech junkies, and we had every expectation of doing the same with the 2012 edition. But a funny thing happened on the way to Statuary Hall this month—instead of pundits, we heard crickets.
Indeed, this has to be the least hyped or talked about SOTU I can remember since the dawn of the digital age. We have been tracking the commentariat pretty closely the last two weeks, and outside of a few scattered obligatory preview pieces in the political press in the last few days, there has been none of the usual build-up of buzz. No splashy front-page curtain-raisers on the President's big new proposals, no political Page 6 gossip about who will be sitting in the First Lady's box, no profiles of the speechwriters toiling in the shadows.
One telling barometer of this year's snooze-a-palooza is how Politico's Playbook, the political insider's bible, has played the speech Monday and today. Normally, in the last two days before the SOTU, it's the topic of conversation in Washington, but in Monday's Playbook there was not one item devoted to the event; today's edition led with an announcement from Bill Gates and several items related to the Republican debate in Florida last night and Mitt Romney's tax returns, before getting to a post-speech preview from a White House official and a couple small speech tidbits.
Even more notable, though, has been the lack of interest in and engagement by the speechwriting community. Unlike past years, when speech blogs were offering a steady stream of pre-SOTU analysis and viewing tips, those sites have been relatively silent on the subject over the past two years. Vital Speeches, Pundit Wire—not one post on either industry-leading blog about the SOTU in the last week (and we are just as guilty here). What was once seen as our Super Bowl has been greeted like a preseason scrimmage.
That's got us more than a little curious. Is this a temporary reflection of the moment and this particular contextual combination—Obama's tenuous political standing, the White House's low-key approach to the speech, the riveting circus of the Republican presidential campaign (can tax reform really compete with open marriage revelations)? Or, or as savvy Politico columnist Roger Simon recently suggested, is it part of a larger pattern/trend around the SOTU as an institution itself?
We invite our fellow speech pros to weigh in with their thoughts—in particular about the long-term implications for our profession. We'll share those insights and judgments in a post-mortem piece later this week.
Gerstein is President of Gotham Ghostwriters and a regular political analyst on Fox News.
Over the last few years we have had much fun partaking in the pre-game chatter around the State of the Union with our fellow speech junkies, and we had every expectation of doing the same with the 2012 edition. But a funny thing happened on the way to Statuary Hall this month—instead of pundits, we heard crickets.
Indeed, this has to be the least hyped or talked about SOTU I can remember since the dawn of the digital age. We have been tracking the commentariat pretty closely the last two weeks, and outside of a few scattered obligatory preview pieces in the political press in the last few days, there has been none of the usual build-up of buzz. No splashy front-page curtain-raisers on the President's big new proposals, no political Page 6 gossip about who will be sitting in the First Lady's box, no profiles of the speechwriters toiling in the shadows.
One telling barometer of this year's snooze-a-palooza is how Politico's Playbook, the political insider's bible, has played the speech Monday and today. Normally, in the last two days before the SOTU, it's the topic of conversation in Washington, but in Monday's Playbook there was not one item devoted to the event; today's edition led with an announcement from Bill Gates and several items related to the Republican debate in Florida last night and Mitt Romney's tax returns, before getting to a post-speech preview from a White House official and a couple small speech tidbits.
Even more notable, though, has been the lack of interest in and engagement by the speechwriting community. Unlike past years, when speech blogs were offering a steady stream of pre-SOTU analysis and viewing tips, those sites have been relatively silent on the subject over the past two years. Vital Speeches, Pundit Wire—not one post on either industry-leading blog about the SOTU in the last week (and we are just as guilty here). What was once seen as our Super Bowl has been greeted like a preseason scrimmage.
That's got us more than a little curious. Is this a temporary reflection of the moment and this particular contextual combination—Obama's tenuous political standing, the White House's low-key approach to the speech, the riveting circus of the Republican presidential campaign (can tax reform really compete with open marriage revelations)? Or, or as savvy Politico columnist Roger Simon recently suggested, is it part of a larger pattern/trend around the SOTU as an institution itself?
We invite our fellow speech pros to weigh in with their thoughts—in particular about the long-term implications for our profession. We'll share those insights and judgments in a post-mortem piece later this week.
Gerstein is President of Gotham Ghostwriters and a regular political analyst on Fox News.
Monday, January 23, 2012
SOTU Live Tweetchat
We'll have a few of our political speechwriting pros offering running commentary during the speech, and we welcome our friends and followers to jump in and pop off if and when you want.
You can find and follow the discussion here.
Use the special hashtag #GGSOTU to have your comments appear in our stream.
If you want to get your words out to the wider Twitter-verse, also add the general hashtag #SOTU.
In the meantime, be sure to check out our Facebook page over the next couple days for the latest news and views on the speech.
We look forward to seeing you online Tuesday night!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
© 2008 Gotham Ghostwriters, All rights reserved.
Posts
