Delegating decency
I'm scooping my own commentary in next week's Ragan Reportblogger, scoop thyself!but have you seen the May 14 National Journal?
The cover story pegs President Bush's first-term chief speechwriter Michael Gerson as the president's "Soul Man."
The story itself opens by summing up George W. Bush's presidential résumé: Bush has "rallied a nation stunned by terrorists, and alienated longtime allies by launching military forces against two sovereign nations, one of which never attacked the United States. He has committed American resources to fighting AIDS in Africa. He has helped to turn domestic party politics upside down by positioning himself and his party as Wilsonian Democrats whose mission in office is to make the world not only safe for democracy, but receptive to it."
And then, author Carl Cannon gives much of the credit for this work to Bush's first-term chief speechwriter. "[Michael] Gerson's role in these undertakings can hardly be overstated," Cannon writes.
Well, okay: It was Gerson, of course, who wrote the wordsor directed other speechwriters in the writing of the wordsthat articulated Bush's policies.
But other speechwriters have written words for other presidents without getting credit for the making of the presidency.
The difference with Gerson, according to Cannon? Gerson has made the Bush administration palatable. "Around the White House, Gerson is known as the man who makes sure the 'compassionate' stays in 'compassionate' conservatism," according to the Journal, which goes on to quote White House Office of Strategic Initiatives director Peter Wehner as saying, "Mike is really the conscience of this place."
White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove adds that Gerson, who has left the speechwriting post for a policy position, looks out for the little guy: "Not to say that he is the only one here with a conscience, but you can count on Mike to ask how a given policy will affect the least among us. The shorthand, political way to say it is that Mike is the one always wondering how we can achieve liberal goals with conservative means."
The article related one anecdote, from a policy meeting about the practicalities and advisability of funneling $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa.
At one point, Bush turned to Gerson:
"Mike, what do you think?"
"Mr. President, if this is possible--and we don't do it
--we will never be forgiven."
There was a brief pause, as the others seemed taken aback.
Bush broke the silence himself, bellowing, "That's Gerson being Gerson!" And then he approved the plan.
As an advocate for speechwriters, maybe I should cheer a story like this. But all I can think is, What if the speechwriter had called in sick that day?
And: What are we to think of a crew that delegates conscience and empathy for "the least among us" as if it's an administrative detail?
And: This was the president who was guided by his soul and delegated all the technical stuff to his cabinet. Now he's delegated soul, too?
And what will he offload next? Golf?
(I'll take it!)
Comments (5)
David, I can think of at least five speeches I wrote that had a profound impact, but never would have happened if I had called in sick that day. I don't think this is so much Bush delegating "soul" to his speechwriter, as it is the speechwriter knowing what his speaker is truly hungry for. And while this story is very favorable toward Gerson, don't foget that we are reading it through the filter of the reporter.
Glynn
Posted by GlynnYoung | May 24, 2005 10:45 AM
Posted on May 24, 2005 10:45
Does any speecwriter really want that kind of responsibility? I write for a politician and I'm sure both he and I are quite happy to leave the policy direction up to him. Is it valid for him to ask me or anyone else for our opinion on policy? Sure. But ultimately he makes the call and he takes the credit, or the blame as the case may be. That's what he was elected for. I'm just here to communicate his direction. Why on Earth would any politician want to give their speechwriter credit for positive social policy - especially in this administration? And, although I don't know if Gerson necessarily endorsed this portrayal of his role, why would any speechwriter want to be burdened with that credit? Such a portrayal doesn't really benefit either the president or his writer.
Posted by RB | May 24, 2005 10:45 AM
Posted on May 24, 2005 10:45
Good points, both. I have written much against preening speechwriters, RB, and I absolutely agree with you.
Glynn, I guess what I'm reacting to is not the notion that a speechwriter can help improve policy--the writer in the group often knows what he thinks more clearly than all the nonwriters--but rather, the glee with which these guys talk about Gerson's inner goodness as opposed to their inner ... WHAT?
It comes off as: a. condescending to Gerson (the adorable moralist that we just couldn't do without) b. irresponsible (we're the strategic political operators; it's HIS job to make sure we don't do anything real terrible and that every once in a while we do something good).
This gets on my nerves not so much because such compartmentalizing is outrageous and dangerous (which it absolutely is), but because it is so familiar among political and corporate leaders.
Posted by David Murray | May 24, 2005 11:52 AM
Posted on May 24, 2005 11:52
David -- we agree. We know what road compartmentalized morality takes us down.
I once worked in a congressional campaign where my primary role was "the conscience" -- at the behest of the candidate's wife, who simply didn't trust the professional handlers sent from the national committee in Washington (the party affiliation will remain anonymous in order to protect the guilty). I'd get these phone calls at 10:30 at night to come to the campaign office to watch planned TV ads -- which (at that time of night) were always the negative, nasty things we see too much of in campaigns. I think they scheduled these at that time in the hopes I couldn't come. I'd watch the ads, shake my head no, and the wife would turn thumbs down. (I even got to write a few of my own for TV and radio, which at least didn't earn me dagger looks from the professional politicos.) Other times, I'd be asked to show up for the taping of ads, and they would be awful -- and I'd rewirte them on the spot . As it turned out, the candidate won the primary and the general election in a landslide, and still serves in the Congress today, because he spent his time defining who he was and what he stood for, as opposed to throwing mud.
Sounds to me like Bush has too many of the professional political types around him. Doesn't speak too well for the president, I'm afraid.
Glynn
Posted by GlynnYoung | May 24, 2005 4:05 PM
Posted on May 24, 2005 16:05
Great comment, Glynn.
It's moments like this when I'm glad to be ablog.
Posted by David Murray | May 24, 2005 10:59 PM
Posted on May 24, 2005 22:59