Customer Reviews

White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

as a speechwriter, this book was manna from heaven for me. there are few books around that look at modern presidential speechwriting in depth. it also has a broader appeal as a presidential history that gets you right inside the inner circle of modern presidents. the book is well written, excruciatingly researched and filled with funny, inspiring and humanizing anecdotes.

Schlesinger has summarized the presidencies from FDR to W. How each president used, or not, the skills of their respective 'ghosts' shows one and all that words do matter; as well as the wisdom of our first executives when it came to choosing their wordsmiths. Witty and full of details, each chapter of this book is a joy. Indeed, this a must read.

Even though I live in Australia, I have long been fascinated with U.S. politics. Especially since GWB walked into the job. It made your politics a lot more interesting. (Good or bad, make your own decisions, I have certainly made mine.)

Even more interesting to me are the Presidents speechwriters. I realise there may be plenty of good books available on this topic which I could have bought, however I was always waiting for that up to date and new book which inevitably had to be released.

For me, this is that book. I am sorry that I do not have the ability to write a comprehensive review. My writing skills do not allow, which is probably why I am fascinated with the skills of a Presidential Speechwriter.

If, like me, you are a layperson who simply enjoys reading about these remarkable writers and how they interact with their Presidents, I am sure you will not be disappointed with this book.

Also, Mr. Schlesinger writes in such a way that even though this book looks imposing, with almost 600 pages, it is nice to read and easily digestible.

Schlesinger describes the men and women who acted as speech writers to every President from FDR in 1932 to George W. Bush in 2001. Each administration is given a chapter. Each President's relationship with his speech writers is outlined with an analysis of one or more key speeches. Sometimes an Inaugural Address; sometimes the State of the Union address; or a speech on foreign or domestic policy; once a resignation speech.

What's fascinating is the unique relationship each President had with his speech writers and other close advisers. The games they played. The office politics. The late nights. Who `owned' the speech and at what point and to what extent the President gave direction. The best were intimately involved. Sorensen and Kennedy were so close that someone observed "When Jack is wounded, Ted bleeds." Carter kept speech writers at arms-length and "didn't much like the idea of using them, ever." It showed.

In some administrations, White House staffers would rail against the power of a speech writer to make policy. In others, the speech writers were emasculated scribes left out in the cold.

What's absolutely fascinating for anyone who has worked in communications in large commercial organizations (as I have) is how eerily familiar many of the trials and tribulations of the role supporting a CEO is to that of the White House Ghosts. Here's some which had a familiar ring:

* Eisenhower's speech writer Bryce Harlow only agreed to take on the role "on the condition that he get to spend a great deal of time around the president so as to best understand how Ike liked to express himself, what his concerns were, how to capture the man's voice." (p. 82)

* Eisenhower advising Harlow not to circulate a speech too widely for review. Ike himself was a speech writer (for MacArthur in the Philippines) and is quoted as saying "..one thing I know: If you put ten people to work on a speech, they'll kill anything in it that has any character." (p.85)

* JFK used speechwriters to counter the "diplomatic blandness" the State Department bureaucracy produced. Echoing the same tin ear that many high-tech Product Marketing departments have when asked to submit speaking points for a CEO speech, the recipe the State Department used "was evidently to take a handful of cliches...repeat at five minute intervals...stir in the dough of the passive voice...and garnish with self-serving rhetoric." (p.131)

* Speech writers in the Kennedy White House influenced strategy and policy "The two roles - writer and policymaker - were symbiotic. .. Active participation made accurate articulation likely.." (p.149)

* In the Nixon White House Kissinger put the speechwriter "through so many drafts with short deadlines and with such insistence on his own organization and language" that the writer said "I'm sick of being Henry's stenographer." (p.206)

* Regan's speech writer Josh Gilder observed that "writing the speech was a small part of (the) job". "Navigating a draft through the rounds of edits required political skills, negotiations, and compromises." (p.343)

* In the Clinton White House the speechwriters claimed that the president only stuck to the written text about half the time. (p. 408) The writers would boldface the text they needed him to say.

Been there. Done that. If you'd like to know what the job of a speech writer is all about, rad this book.

'White House Ghosts' seeks to answer the questions of who wrote the best Presidential speeches and lines, which President gave the speech, and who came up with the ideas at the core of those speeches. Often times, other than who said it, those questions are not easily answered but Schlesinger still weaves a great historical accounting of presidential history, communications, and policy development since FDR. At its best, Schlesinger makes clear that speechwriting is a collaborative effort that brings together a President's vision with the wordsmithing of a talented writer with the time to spend on a speech. At its worse, speechwriting appears to drive policy development and changes because a good line was created, so the policy must follow through. Perhaps even worse is when a line has no relation to policy at all (see President George W. Bush's second inaugural). Schlesinger's exhaustive research brings you into each presidency, shows you how the President interacted with the speechwriters and how some of the most famous, and important, words of the 20th and early 21st century came about. A must for any student or fan of presidential history.

This is an insightful, detailed and well balanced history of the relationships between American presidents and the people who write their speeches. Mr. Schlesinger interviewed more than 90 speechwriters and other aides. He devotes a separate chapter to each president from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to George Walker Bush.

Raymond Moley wrote about FDR: "My job from the beginning . . . was to sift proposals for him, discuss facts and ideas with him, and help him crystallize his own policy. Schlesinger writes that FDR believed "policies and words are inextricably linked -- the former cannot be conjured in the absence of the latter." FDR's speechwriters were "advisers as well as wordsmiths."

Truman continued FDR's practices; speeches were written at meetings "at which most of his principal advisers, including Dean Acheson, were present, and during which policy was really and carefully shaped through its articulation."

Over time the job evolved. "As television eclipsed radio as the nation's medium, as the White House staff grew from a handful to a sprawling group of specialized cadres, and, of course, as each president has dealt with it in his own way."

For awhile, the role of the speechwriter was something of a secret. John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address was in nearly final form. But he pretended to be writing a first draft of it in longhand to give a leading reporter the impression that he, not Theodore Sorensen, was the major author.

Johnson continued the secrecy tradition. Richard Goodwin remembers that "the finest moments of my life in politics" were spent writing an address leading to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. "It is not just Negroes, but it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we . . . shall . . . overcome." Johnson [and Goodwin] made black protest his own.

Reporters were told that Johnson himself wrote the speech, but the speech was Mr. Goodwin's work. He had worked closely with Johnson for a year and, Goodwin wrote later, Goodwin had drawn on his own knowledge of Johnson -- "not merely his views, but his manner of expression, patterns of reasoning, the natural cadences of his speech. [My goal was] to heighten and polish -- illuminate, as it were -- his inward beliefs and natural idiom, to attain . . . an authenticity of expression.... the document was pure Johnson."

Nixon broke with the secrecy tradition and "established the first formally structured White House speechwriting office, called the Writing and Research Department, or in Nixon's words, "the PR department". Schlesinger writes that the writers were rarely consulted on policy matters. In fact, Nixon wrote speeches on his own with little or no input from the speechwriting office.

Schlesinger writes that speechwriters had little involvement in the making of policy and only limited access to the president in most of the administrations that followed Nixon's. For example, "Ronald Reagan's speechwriters had diminishing access to a president who was remote from even his closest aides. [But Reagan] had presented a clear ideology and style so they had gotten his voice even though they might go months without seeing him."

Schlesinger argues that George Herbert Walker Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford were not very concerned with their speeches. Mr. Bush disliked "high-flying" rhetoric and rarely practiced them in advance. Mr. Carter "didn't much like the idea of using [speechwriters], ever." President Ford "rarely faced up to the fact that making a major address is one of the most important things a President does," according to his chief speechwriter, Robert Hartmann. Journalist John Hersey was "profoundly disturbed by what seemed to me the aimlessness of [Ford's] speechwriting session."

Bill Clinton returned to involving speechwriters in the making of policy. "There was more crossover between the speechwriters and policy aides than in any presidency since [LBJ's]. . . . Clinton preferred to work on speeches with aides who could answer substantive questions about policy." But Clinton often ad libbed, spoke in public often, and in practice devalued his own words.

According to Schlesinger, George W. Bush recognizes the importance of speeches: "He put a great deal of time and energy into speech preparation and faith in his speechwriters."

Schlesinger believes that Presidential speeches are important to educate and persuade the public and to force decisions and clarify policies within the executive branch. Schlesinger believes that by divorcing speechwriters from policy making, recent presidents may be depriving themselves of a useful tool for achieving their objectives.

Whatever your views of the value of speechwriters, this is a fascinating and insightful view of the American presidency.

Robert C. Ross, 2008

It was quick, easy, amusing read; lots of historical anecdotes from each White House since FDR....but apart from that, I can't say I know much more about what makes for a good speech, a good speechwriter, or a good Presidential speaker now than I did before I read the book.
Apart from figuring out that speeches written by committee don't make for memorable prose, the anecdotes don't really add up to much--- not much insight as to what FDR, JFK, and RR shared in common, if anything, that made them great in this department, versus what Carter and the 2 Bushes shared, if anything, that made them so mediocre....
Look for a fun read, but don't look for any analysis or depth of understanding...

Not your normal, outside-the-classroom reading, but pick it up. If you're even the slightest bit interested in politics, Washington, or behind-the-scenes anecdotes of the Presidency, this is a must-read.

This is a great book for those of us who believe in the importance of words. However, one is left with the impression that there was so much more. Maybe because I read it immediately after the impeccably detailed prose of "Team of rivals", I kind of resented that whole administrations, specially the recent ones, where everything is out there, saved and in the cyberspace, were dispensed in 10 pages. Also, the author is very kind with George W. Bush, making him sound much more eloquent than what he appeared in real life. If he is, and was not coming across- I somehow doubt it, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt- that by itself was an interesting story that the author left out. Also, the editing was a bit choppy, with words missing here and there. Maybe it was my edition. However, I recommended it to everybody interested in political history and strategy, and also, on management and the challenge of running an efficient company, team or administration.

This book has interesting insights on the presidential speechwriting process -- who knew Truman's speeches for the 1948 whistlestop train tour were FLOWN out from Washington? One would expect this book to be well written, since it's about writers. That's not the case. The text seems choppy and jumps along with rough transitions between surprisingly dull prose. I wonder if the manuscript was longer and the editors took a machete to it?