The following is on the net:

“Speechwriting is and always will be ethically fraught. The very attempt of one human mind to write an expression to be issued by another human mouth—that mouth usually owned by a figure vastly more influential than the writer—makes speechwriting an ethically complicated job.”

Before Harding presidents of the United States did not formally use speechwriters. Lincoln produced immortal prose. His Gettysburg Address is literature.

Lincoln sharpened his rhetorical skills in a series of debates with his political opponent, Stephen Douglas, no mean rhetorician.

Some of the phrases Winston Churchill used in his speeches are memorable. There is little doubt that he was capable of magnificent prose as was Theodore Roosevelt. Some of the phrases Franklin D Roosevelt used in his speeches are memorable. However, they may have been the product of Roosevelt’s corps of speechwriters.

A notable speechwriter for FDR was Samuel Rosenman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rosenman

Although Harding was the first president to formally use speechwriters presidents since the first president have used help in drafting their speeches.

https://www.presidentprofiles.com/General-Information/A-History-of-the-Presidency-Presidential-ghost-writers.html

Would it be too much to ask that politicians no longer use speechwriters? Should they be required to appeal to the public using their own words or at least attributing the source when other’s words are spoken? Do most politicians have a voice of their own?

I was advisor for military affairs to Senator Woodley in the Australian Parliament. As far as I know Woodley needed to consult nobody when he was called upon to make a public address.

“Speechwriting is and always will be ethically fraught.
david f,
Totally agree !
Here's a stark example;

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_real_greta_thunberg?utm_campaign=el_gretathunbergdavos2_1_20_23&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

Dar Indyvidual,

What an eminently clueless thing to say. And what on earth are you doing following the flogs from Rebel Not News? They are shockers. Petty little ambush tactics asking snarky little questions of little substance. Give me a break.

Dear davidf,

Don Watson was Keating's speech write but I think this reflection by Keating on the Redfern speech is illustrative.

"The point of this article is to make clear Watson was not the author of the speech. The sentiments of the speech, that is, the core of its authority and authorship, were mine. I had discussed with Watson on dozens of occasions how non-indigenous Australia could never make good our relationship with indigenous people until we came clean about the history.

Indeed, Watson records in his book Recollections of a Bleeding Heart me looking out the window of a VIP aircraft crossing outback Western Australia, saying words to the effect, ''We will never really get Australia right until we come to terms with them''; ''them'' meaning the Aborigines. And by ''come to terms'' I meant owning up to the dispossession.

I remember well talking to Watson a number of times about stories told to me through families I knew, of putting ''dampers'' out for Aborigines. The dampers were hampers of poisoned food provided only to murder them. I used to say to Watson that this stuff had to be owned up to. And it was me who established the inquiry into the Stolen Generation that Kevin Rudd apologised to. The generation who were taken from their mothers.

So, the sentiments that ''we did the dispossessing . . . we brought the diseases, the alcohol, that we committed the murders and took the children from their mothers'' were my sentiments. P.J. Keating's sentiments. They may have been Watson's sentiments also. But they were sentiments provided to a speechwriter as a remit, as an instruction, as guidance as to how this subject should be dealt with in a literary way."

What an eminently clueless thing to say.
SteeleRedux,
Are you suggesting Rebel News has written Thunberg's giggles & silence ?
You must admit she did appear rather like a total idiot but how that is the reporters fault I fail to see.

Maybe politicians should return to the Friday night soapbox, town hall meetings and Sunday afternoon's in the Domain. That would sort them out. I would like to see 'Question Time' in Parliament improved, get away from those Dorothy Dix type questions from government backbenches to ministers.

Dear David,

Speech writers are important. Not everyone has the
capacity to make a successful speech. Not everyone
is a good public speaker. Many can express their views
in private remarkably well, or can even put them in writing
but when it comes to public speaking - often they may freeze
up.

A successful speech is one that engages with an audience.
A good speech writer will analyze the audience and adapt the
speech accordingly - to factors like age, gender, culture,
profession, size, and political affiliation.

That's why speech writers are employed by many senior-elected
officials and executives in the government and private sectors.
As well as in weddings and other social occasions.

Queen Elizabeth II after the death of Princess Diana had
speechwriters add to her public speech that she was speaking
also as a "grandmother." Which endeared her to the public.

And who can forget Jacinta Adhern's speech to Parliament when
she gave the Muslim greeting after the Christchurch massacre.
And her cry of "They Are Us!"
And Ronald Reagan's cry to Gorbachev to "Bring down the wall!"

There's so many examples of speech writer ideas that help
develop and display leadership skills as needed and required.

Speeches can make a big difference in winning or losing an
election. Leaders need to get them right

Dear Foxy,

It is true that not everyone has the capacity to make a good speech. I feel that those who do not have that capacity should not be in politics. I want to feel that a person speaking should be expressing his or her own ideas in his or her own words unless that person is in a ceremonial office like the queen. We know an actor is speaking someone else's words. The skill with which that person does so marks the quality of their acting.

We expect dishonesty in advertising which promotes the effectiveness of a product. I want someone who represents me in government to be more than a mouthpiece. I think it should be a politician's job to express and communicate his or her ideas in his or her own words to the constituents.

One doesn't subcontract a person to make love to one's spouse. A politician shouldn't subcontract the job of communicating with constituents.

Dear Foxy,

Although I did not support Reagan I respect his ability to make a good speech. He not only had the ability to make a good speech. He could write the speech in his own words. Drafts of his speeches have been found in his own writing. When he said the inspiring words, "Tear down that wall." those were probably his own words.

You wrote, "A successful speech is one that engages with an audience.
A good speech writer will analyze the audience and adapt the
speech accordingly - to factors like age, gender, culture,
profession, size, and political affiliation."

I think it is more important to say what you mean and hope it will appeal to the audience than to pander to the prejudices or mood of the audience. The politician's thoughts and plans should determine the content of the speech - not the nature of the audience. Sometimes a speech can serve to awaken an audience. Winston Churchill roused his audiences from the defeatism and passiveness of the appeasement era.

Maybe politicians should return to the Friday night soapbox,
Paul1405,
Great idea, I'm with you on that one !

Not all politicians need a speech writer, but most do. A good or great speech requires more than just the ability to organise thoughts. It also needs to create memorable and iconic phrases that capture the essence of the subject and enthuse the audience to action or support.

Churchill was journalist in his early life and, later, an author and was therefore became one of the great speakers of his or any age. It helped that he had a working vocabulary (estimated at 30.000 words) greater than almost anyone then living.

To get an understanding of how great speeches are constructed see Boris Johnson explaining the "fight them on the beaches" speech which was probably the most important speech of the 20th century....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLak2IzIv7U

Of course not all great speeches have to be about great events. My favourite Churchill speech is his eulogy of Chamberlain showing enormous generosity to a fallen foe....
http://youtu.be/n8TJa9eJy3A or the transcript here...
http://www.ukpol.co.uk/winston-churchill-1940-speech-on-the-death-of-neville-chamberlain/

Likewise, Reagan spent his two decades refining the art of writing speeches before his political career started with the astonishing "Time for Choosing" speech.

(Just background on the "Tear Down this Wall" speech. Reagan didn't write the speech but did write that line and delivered it in defiance of his own state department.)

One of the great speech-writers in Australia was Graham Freudenberg who wrote for Whitlam and Hawke. You'd think Whitlam, a lawyer, would be good at the art but apparently was hopeless and relied on Freudenberg to crystallise Whitlam's thoughts into some coherency. (Freudenberg's book "A Certain Grandeur" is required reading for anyone trying to understand the Whitlam government). But they remained Whitlam's thoughts, the sign of a great speech-writer.

Speech-writers remain necessary for most politicians. The very best speakers don't need them, but being a good speaker doesn't make someone a good politician. Even without understanding German, Hitler was mesmerising as a speaker. But the thoughts behind the words remain the real issue and so long as the politician retains control of that aspect, outsourcing the speech-writing seems valid.

Dear David,

In the past politicians such as Benjamin Disraeli would
only make 3 polished speeches a year. Today that is
not feasible, or at least not sensible, to be in
high office and spend half your time honing fine rhetorical
phrases. Therefore speech writers are necessary. Also,
unlike most other form of writing speech writing does not offer
a credit or a byline.

It's usually a behind the scenes sort of occupation, unsung and
uncelebrated.

Ken Khachigian was a longtime aide to President Nixon and he
was the chief speechwriter for President Reagan.

Peter Robinson, who wrote Reagan's line - "tear down the wall,"
said his team knew what tone worked for the president: clarity,
a sense of vision and a moral purpose.

Robinson also knew that sometimes great speechmaking requires
breaking rules and following your instincts. Robinson had been
advised by numerous diplomats not to mention the Berlin Wall in
the speech, in spite of advise, he left the line, "Mr Gorbachev,
tear down the wall," in every draft.

Dear Foxy,

Sometimes one can be seduced by words. I read a couple of articles written by Kevin Rudd before he became prime minister. They were most impressive. Rudd was a Churchill in speech and a Chamberlain in action.

I was involved in politics in Philadelphia during the Vietnamese War. One politician in my party running for mayor gauged his audiences. If they were for the war he lauded the virtues of the military. If they were against the war he questioned its wisdom. Nuri Reichart and I played a part in seeing he didn't get nominated. He was very angry at both of us.

Whether or not a politician uses a speech writer she or he should be consistent and honest. Don't tailor your speech to the audience, but say what you think.

"tear down THIS wall".

"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan". The speech was clearly a success so many seek to claim the glory. eg Peter Robinson.

" In an article published in The Wall Street Journal in November 2009, [Anthony] Dolan gives a detailed account of how in an Oval Office meeting that was prior to Robinson's draft Reagan came up with the line on his own. He records impressions of his own reaction and Robinson's at the time.".

Dear David,

Peter Robinson certainly knew and understood the US President
Ronald Reagan. Reagan questioned the wall but Robinson wrote
the line to "tear down the wall." He understood the President
very well having written so many
speeches for him:

http://politico.eu/article/speechwriter-who-helped-reagan-tear-down-that-wall

He understood what tone worked for the president: clarity, a
sense of vision and a moral purpose. He also realised that sometimes
as stated earlier great speechwriting requires breaking rules
and following one's instincts.

Robinson had been advised by numerous diplomats not to
mention the Berlin Wall in the speech, yet in spite of the
advice, he left the line - "Mr Gorbachev, tear down the wall,"
in every draft.

And the President took it on board on Robinson's advice.

Competing stories that we'll never know the answer to.

I guess those who think little of Reagan would prefer to believe the Robinson story, while those who know Reagan was a great man would prefer to believe Anthony Dolan. Either way, the speech embodied the ideas and aims of Reagan and it was Reagan's decision to override the State Dept to use those words, just as he'd done with the 'Evil empire' speech.

Nonetheless it was a great speech because of its delivery and because it had all the elements that galvanised action and support. The wall that had separated Europe for a quarter century fell three years later. Along with the "On the beaches" speech, the most iconic of the 20th century.

Even so, I'd still vote for the Chamberlain eulogy speech as my favourite simply because of its demonstration of simple English compassion and fair-mindedness.

Dear mhaze,

I know you love the bloke but come on.

Dolan said:

"Well before a draft was circulated, I called the writer who had the assignment, Peter Robinson, and told him I was going to an Oval Office meeting.

Shortly before we walked to the West Wing, Peter told me what he wanted in the draft: "Tear down the wall." I pushed back in my chair from my desk and let loose "fantastic, wonderful, great, perfect" and other inadequate exclamations. The Oval Office meeting agenda went quickly, with little chance to pop the question. But the discussion ceased for a moment toward the end, and I crowded in: "Mr. President, it's still very early but we were just wondering if you had any thoughts at all yet on the Berlin speech?"

Pausing for only a moment, Reagan slipped into his imitation of impressionist Rich Little doing his imitation of Ronald Reagan—he made the well-known nod of the head, said the equally familiar "well," and then added in his soft but resonant intonation while lifting his hand and letting it fall: "Tear down the wall.""

Do you really think Regan hadn't seen the speech before the meeting on the 19th?

"On Friday, May 15, the speeches for the President's trip to Rome, Venice, and Berlin, including my draft, were forwarded to the President, and on Monday, May 18, the speechwriters joined him in the Oval Office. My speech was the last we discussed. Tom Griscom asked the President for his comments on my draft."

The argument that it was portrayed as the president's own in some quarters to smooth the way for it to remain in the speech is pretty evident.

Thanks Steele.

Here's more:

http://hoover.org/research/secrets-statescraft-peter-robinson-art-writing-ronald-reagans-speeches

Sorry - my eyes are playing up again.

Here's the link again:

http://hoover.org/research/secrets-statecraft-peter-robinson-art-writing-ronald-reagans-speeches

david f,
Those who are best at making political decisions aren't always the best at communicating their ideas to the public. I don't think imposing arbitrary restrictions on the jobs people can do would be a good thing.

On a less serious note, did you ever see In The Red? The final episode includes the best fictional political speech ever!

Well SR, as I said, competing stories for which we'll never know the answer. Those who think little of Reagan will believe one thing and those who know he was The Great Communicator will think the opposite.

There's as much point arguing over it as there is arguing over which is the best colour.

mhaze,

Gaslighting again.

There's evidence and then there's bulldust.

And no one but you is inferring anything negative
about the former US President. As a matter of fact
he was very popular - especially in California - his
home state. I know. I lived there for close to ten
years.

Dear mhaze,

There aren't competing stories at all. There is the account of the person who wrote the draft of the speech for the president and there is a president who never claimed to have written the words himself.

And I seem to recall you lauding Peter Robinson as a 'conservative intellectual'.

Are you now claiming he is a lying sack of ...

Therefore the only way there is two sides to the story is if you are conceding conservative intellectuals can be out and out liars.

Which is it?

Foxy,

Why are you so upset about this? Its been argued back and forth within the Reagan fraternity for thirty years, with no resolution. IIRC there was an exchange of views within the pages of the Wall Street Journal about the provenance of its most iconic line.

It was an iconic speech with an iconic line (even though you got it wrong twice here) and who came up with it is of secondary importance and will never be known for certain.

Why so overwrought?

Next you'll be telling me Churchill didn't write the Chamberlain eulogy and if you think I keep trying to get the conversation back to that speech, its only because I'm so fond of it.

Just on speech-writers, the first and one of the greatest was Thucydides who wrote in the final decades of the 5th century BC. His books are replete with speeches from all sorts of politicians and he wrote every one of them based on his recollection of what he or his informers recalled and what he considered the speaker would have said in the circumstances.

Pericles' Funeral Oration, widely considered one of the great speeches of history, is almost certainly primarily Thucydides' work.

Reagan was the second worse post war US President, second only to Trump, although some would say he was even worse than Trump. Reagan's failures are legendary, his support for terrorists and brutal despotic regimes in Iraq, Iran, El Salvador, South Africa, Panama and elsewhere. His economic polices forced a million Americans into poverty. Reagan was a first class warmonger and a liar, he lied about his war service, appointed corrupt officials to high office. His whole administration was corrupt. Reagan was a fraud, and one of the worse US Presidents ever.

p/s Who can forget Reagan ordering a US nuclear strike against the Soviet Union when he didn't realise the microphone was turned on, he should have stuck to his third rate acting career.

"Parliamentary debates, federal and states, are little more than red-bottomed baboons having a grunting contest", I observed this morning. In the days of Menzies, Whitlam, and their predecessors, debates featured knowledge, wisdom and wit. "Until the mid-1960s, MPs were banned from reading speeches – let alone mindlessly regurgitating talking points from a minister or shadow minister's office".

"Therefore the only way there is two sides to the story is if you are conceding conservative intellectuals can be out and out liars."

Oh that's the only option? Someone's lying? How about two people genuinely having a different recollection? Does human frailty not compute in your world?

Two people, many years down the track with differing recollections. It happens more often than we'd like. Ask any police investigator. Ever been married? :)

Again, why the angst? Who wrote the phrase is of minor and purely historic curiosity. (BTW, Reagan had talked about tearing down the wall all the way back in 1967). The really important thing is that Reagan had defied his own State Dept to utter the words. Thankfully.

mhaze,

Why are you contradicting historical facts?

As Steele pointed out - there aren't two options
to this speech. It's not a competition. Just a
recognition of what happened and has been acknowledged
as such.
Stop diverting

OK Foxy, got it,

The version you like is a fact, just because. The other is a lie, just because.

That type of thinking explains a lot.

"especially in California - his home state. I know. I lived there for close to ten years."

Oh, is that where you learned all about the electoral college?

___________________________________________________________________

On more substantive issues, after mentioning it t'other day, I pulled out my copy of "A Certain Grandeur" last night to reread it after 4 decades. Its really quite fascinating and has some good stuff on the art of speech-writing from someone who was probably Australia's best. If you get a chance, give it a read, especially if you're interested in the Whitlam era.

mhaze,

Still back-peddling.

Unfortunately your track record isn't good.
Supporter of Trump. Supporter of Pell. And the
list goes on.

I doubt your chances of getting it right.
But keep trying.

Foxy,

Its a shame that you have no intention of addressing what I find an interesting topic with any other than your foolish barbs.

I feel a little embarrassed for you that are prepared to make a fool of yourself by saying things like "[s]till back-peddling" when anyone can read the thread and see how wrong that is. So wrong that you are unable to justify the claim and I feel no need to defend myself against it.

I still have no idea why you got so over-wrought about a minor issue that can't be resolved anyway and, given that you haven't sought to explain it, I suspect you don't know why you lost it either.

Foxy, its nice that you allow me to live in your head rent free. But I really do have better things to do than massage your bruised ego.

mhaze,

I've had my say on this topic.
Providing information is an occupational habit.

As for you?

Swallow your pride and admit you were wrong.
It can't be that hard. You must be used to it by now.

mhaze, mhaze, it's your call
Admit your mistake about the Berlin Wall
where Reagan put on quite a show
And Robinson wrote it as we know.

This is not about me.
It's about you admitting your mistake.
And that's something you refuse to take.

I don't think Donald Trump had a speechwriter, it was all his own work! There couldn't be anyone as dumb as Donald to write such crap.

Hi Paul,

The White House wordsmith who channeled remarks and
ensured they were both presidential and Trumpish was
Stephen Miller. His job was a difficult one. Not
only did it involve managing an enormous ego. It
involved manipulating words. Apparently the "word
whisperer,"had an encyclopedic memory and knew how to
capture Trump's voice." He also had to play the game
according to Trump's rules of course. As Trump said -
during the campaign - "It's he who has the "best words,"
that wins.

Other advisers have left but Miller is still around Trump.

"Would it be too much to ask that politicians no longer use speechwriters?"
- I agree, stop treating us like clueless idiots that need to be manipulated and patronised for the sake of optics.
Say it in your own words or not at all.

They're not leaders, just branch managers of globalism.
They care more about what the other so-called 'leaders' think than what we think.
They manipulate us to think about things the way they think about things.
They treat us with contempt.

"You must admit she did appear rather like a total idiot but how that is the reporters fault I fail to see."
- Well she is mentally retarded, what did you expect?

Dangerous Doctor Donald has vowed in a speech, yesterday, like General MacArthur; "I shall return (to the White Hose)! If that comes to pass, lets hope unlike MacArthur, thousands of his fellow countrymen don't have to die to make good on his promise.