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.