Readers of a certain age will remember a popular TV western called Have Gun Will Travel, which aired from 1957 to 1963. The series starred Richard Boone as a gunman for hire who went by the name of Paladin –- the name given to a knight-errant in the days of chivalry.

Paladin was an unlikely western hero for at least a couple of reasons. First, he lived in a posh hotel in San Francisco. He wore fine clothes, dined in elegant restaurants, gambled and chased women. He took to the dusty trail only as business required. Second, he was extremely well-educated –- as quick with a quote from some classic author as he was with his gun.

I thought of Paladin recently when I got an email from a reader asking my advice. For reasons that will shortly be obvious, I won’t give his name.

“I'm a speechwriter for a major trade association in Washington,” he writes. “I'd like to see a discussion about having to write in defense of policies that one finds objectionable. I've lately found myself in that position more than once. I'd like to know how many of my fellows have experienced this, how they feel about it, what they've done about it, etc.”

I think that’s a very good subject for discussion indeed. Are speechwriters mere hired guns –- or “paid pens” -– who will write for anyone with ready money? Or do we have to be in sympathy with the views of the people for whom we write?

Speaking for myself, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed 100 percent with anyone I’ve ever written for, but I’ve agreed with my clients most of the time. So I was willing to make the occasional compromise as long as I wasn’t asked to sell out completely.

I was willing, in short, to be a mistress but not a whore.

In my opinion, if a speechwriter finds himself having to champion policies he disapproves of more than say, a quarter of the time, he needs to find a new client. Or a new occupation.

The floor is open, readers. I’d love to hear what my fellow practitioners have to say about this question.