University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Political Speechwriting ("Ghostwriting") In The Nixon Administration, 1968-1972: Implications For Rhetorical Criticism

(USC Thesis Other)

Political Speechwriting ("Ghostwriting") In The Nixon Administration, 1968-1972: Implications For Rhetorical Criticism

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a goo., loaga of the pege in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xsrox University Microfilms 300 North Zoob Rood Ann Arbor, Michigan 40100 74-14,432 CURTIS, Alan Morris, 1944- POLITICAL SPEECHWRITING ( ' 'GHOSTWRITING* * ) IN THE NIXON AEMINISTRATION, 1968-1972: IMPLICATIONS FOR RHETORICAL CRITICISM. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1973 Speech University Microfilms, A XEROX C om pany, A nn Arbor, M ichigan © 1974 ALAN MORRIS CURTIS A LL RIGHTS R ESER V ED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. POLITICAL SPEECHWRITING ("GHOSTWRITING") IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION, 1968-1972: IMPLICATIONS FOR RHETORICAL CRITICISM by Alan M orris C urtis A D isser ta tio n P r e se n te d to the FACU LTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In P artial F u lfillm en t of the R eq u irem en ts for the D egree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Speech C om m unication) Septem ber 1973 UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA THE ORADUATC SCHOOL UNIVERSITY RARK LOS ANOELES, CALIFORNIA #0007 This dissertation, written by under the direction of kin.... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y ALaxx.MQxris..CurUs. DISSERTATION CO Chai n*** TABLE O F CONTENTS Chapter I. II. in. IV. i IN T R O D U C T IO N ........................................................................... O rigin of the P ro b lem Statem ent of the P rob lem Sign ifican ce of the Study D efinitions of T erm s D esign of the Study P re v ie w of R em aining C hapters Sum m ary of Chapter REVIEW OF THE L IT E R A T U R E ......................................... S ou rces Searched N o n -R e sea r c h L iteratu re on G hostw riting T reatm en t of G hostw riting in P ast R e se a rc h on P r e sid e n tia l Speaking Richard Nixon and Speechw riting BACKGROUND, CONTEXT, AND BRIEF HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL GHOSTWRITING . . P re sid e n tia l G hostw riting: W ashington Through H erbert H oover P r e sid e n tia l Speechw riting: Franklin R o o sev elt to 1968 C on clusions PRESIDENT NIXON'S POLICY ON SP E E C H - W R IT E R S ........................................................................................ The W riting and R e se a r c h D ivisio n N on-Speechw riting Function of the D ivision R e se a r c h Function of the D ivision Sp eechw ritin g F unction of the D ivision Sum m ary and C on clusions ii {Chapter Page V. SPEEC H WRITERS AND THE RHETORICAL CRITIC........................................................................................... The R h etorical C ritic Should Substitute the Word "Speechw riter" for '’G hostw riter'1 The R h etorical C ritic M ust View P resid en tia l Speechw riting in the C ontext of the Totality of P r e sid e n tia l R e sp o n sib ilitie s and W orkload The R h etorical C ritic Should E valuate S p eech - w riting in the C ontext of the C om position and D u ties of a G iven P r e sid e n t's Speechw riting Staff The R h etorical C ritic Should E valuate S p eech - w riting in the C ontext of the Staff's C ontribu tions to the D ifferen t Types of P re sid e n tia l Speaking The R h etorical C ritic Should Evaluate S p eech- w riting in the C ontext of the P resid en cy as an "Institution" Sum m ary and C onclusions VI. SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S IO N S..................................... Sum m ary C onclusions APPEN D IX ES ' A. Q uestions U sed in Interview ing the Nixon S p eech w riter s .......................................................................... B. In terview s with Six Nixon S p eech w riters BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................... 158 190 i i 1 203 208 323 iii CHAPTER I i i INTRODUCTION i O rigin of the P ro b lem The w riter has long been in te r e ste d in the p roblem of what is i u su ally c a lled gh ostw ritin g. E ven during undergraduate days, h is j I c u r io sity was a rou sed by reading such books as M o ley's A fter Seven Y ea rs, R osen m an 's Working With R o o s e v e lt, and M ich elso n 's The G host T alks. By som e s e t of c ir c u m sta n c e s , the w riter was su rp rised and fla ttered when asked to do a m odicum of sp eech w ritin g for a United i States sen ato r, who at the tim e w as N ational C om m ittee C hairm an of jone of the country's m ajor p olitica l p a r ties. In the c o u r se of this e x p e r ie n c e , the w riter began to question the accu racy of the popular con cep t of ghostw riting and was su rp rise d to d isc o v e r that som e r h e to r ic a l sc h o la r s reflected th is popular and probably in accu rate notion i in a r tic le s in p r o fessio n a l jou rn als. Thus, this study was undertaken b eca u se of a com bination of both p erson al and p ro fessio n a l in te r e sts. Statem ent of the P ro b lem E ven though rh e to r ica l sc h o la r s have long indicated the se r io u s - jness of ghostw riting as it a ffects the theory and c r itic is m of public 2 d is c o u r se , this w r ite r 's se a r c h has failed to uncover a sin g le r h e to r i cal study fo cu sed on p resid en tial sp eech w ritin g. The pu rp oses of this study th erefore w ere: 1. To d eterm in e the e x isten ce and gen era l nature of sp e e c h - w riting ("ghostwriting") am ong p resid en ts of the United States - -e s p e c ia lly recen t o n e s - - in ord er to e sta b lish b ack ground and context as a b a sis for co m p a riso n s betw een th ese fo rm er p resid en ts and R ichard M. Nixon. 2. To d e sc r ib e N ixon's p o lic ie s and p r a c tic e s regulating the j use of sp eech w ritin g in p resid en tial sp e e c h e s, 1968-72. j 1 3. To evaluate the ta sk s facing rh etorical c r itic s as a resu lt of the influence of m odern p resid en tial sp eech w ritin g. j S ign ifican ce of the Study A con sid eration of p olitical sp eech w ritin g w as thought to be sign ifican t for se v e r a l reason s: 1. G hostw riting is as old as the record s of h isto r y , dating back at le a s t to Antiphone who, in 411 B .C . , w as am ong the fir s t of a new group in Athens to take advantage of changing conditions by becom * ing "the w riter of sp ee ch es for m oney" (B rigan ce, 1956:10). B etw een ! 403 and 380 B. C. , L y sia s w rote "not few er than two hundred fo re n sic sp ee ch es" for o th ers to d eliv er (Jebb, 1893:10). A ccordin g to C ic e r o , Iso cr a tes "wrote sp ee ch es for other people to d eliver; on which a c count, being often p ersecu ted for a ss is tin g . . . left off com p osin g oration s for other people" (Brutus: XII). The problem of ghostw riting, i it would se e m , has confronted rh etorical c r itic s sin ce ancient tim e s. 2. Although rh eto rica l c r itic s have long indicated the se r io u s j i im p lication s inherent in ghostw riting, a sea rch of the literatu re r e vealed no th e sis or d isse r ta tio n that focu sed on the subject. I 3. This paucity of sy stem a tic r e se a r c h in our d iscip lin e r e la - , J i tive to sp eech w ritin g led M arie Hochm uth N ich ols to Bay: O bviously [re fe r r in g to the e x iste n c e of g h o stw r ite rs] our work as c r itic s m u st be m ore tentative; ob viou sly little can be taken for f granted. P erhap s one good thing m ay eventually co m e. Som e a ler t student of public a d d re ss w ill take upon h im se lf the r e sp o n sib ility of doing a sea rch in g study of ghostw riting in A m e rica . 1 ! hope that m ay be a bright spot in what oth erw ise app ears to be absolute d a rk n ess. (1967:47-48) 1 i i 4. Many past sc h o la r ly stu d ies of p o litica l sp ea k ers s e e m to ! j have d isreg a rd ed the influence, even the e x is te n c e , of sp ee ch w r ite rs | in th eir a n a ly se s. 5. Som e sc h o la r s (B orm an, 1961; N ic h o ls, 1967) have indi- i cated that any given m ajor p o litica l lea d er u tilizin g ghostw riting has i I 1 done so in e sse n tia lly the sam e fash ion as a ll other p o litica l le a d e r s, \ t e . g . , "ghostw riting is ghostw riting." F u r th e rm o re , th ese sch o la rs im p lie d that the standard p ra ctice in sp eech w ritin g was the w riting of e n tire sp e e c h e s which w ere then m e r e ly read verb atim by the p r e s i dent (or other prom inent p erson s who em p loyed the p ra ctice). 6. A letter to th is w riter from the head of N ixon's "Writing I and R e se a r c h D ivision " of the White H ouse staff (P r ic e , 1972) a lm o st ! ^completely con trad icted the im m ed ia tely preceding paragraph. This (contradiction appeared to m e r it c a refu l in vestigation . 7. R e g a rd less of what w as d isc o v e r e d about the relation sh ip s betw een Nixon and his sp e e c h w r ite r s , it se e m e d lik ely that an ev a lu a tion of the phenom ena in te r m s of the work of rh eto rica l c r itic s would be of sig n ifica n ce. D efin ition s of T erm s ^ , i G h ostw ritin g. - -A lthough the p ra ctice of ghostw riting is c e n tu r ie s old, the term "ghost" w as probably fir s t u sed in the January 6, j i 1889 issu e of The P all M all G azette to d e sc rib e "one who se c r e tly doesj I I work for another, the latter taking the c re d it ("G hostwriting B ureau," I 1941:49). The sa m e usage is em p loyed by so m e m odern rh eto rica l c r itic s . F or ex a m p le, Borm ann (1961:420) d e sc r ib e s ghostw riting as ! "the p ra ctice of using c o lla b o ra to rs to d eceiv e the audience and m ake the sp eak er appear better than he is (or at le a st different)." i S p ee c h w r ite r . - - P e r so n (s) em p loyed by a sp eak er to a s s is t in | the preparation of m a te r ia ls u sed in a public sp eech (1) w here the e x iste n c e and duties of the w r ite r(s) are not withheld from the public, (2) w here the opinions and p o licie s to be e x p r e s s e d are provided by the sp eak er to the w r ite r (s), and (3) w here the final wording and other d etails are con trolled by the sp eak er. A dditional te r m s are defined throughout the study as those ter m s are u sed and in the context in which they are u sed . M odern P r e s id e n c ie s .--T h a t period from F ranklin D. R o o se - j I v e lt's fir s t ad m in istration (1932) to the p resen t, b eca u se, fir s t, he was the fir s t p resid en t to give w id esp read publicity to h is u se of o th ers in | the preparation of im portant sp e e c h e s--a p p a r e n tly he enjoyed boasting j publicly about his "brain tru st. " S ev era l of th ese brain tr u ste r s pub- j lish ed books and a r tic le s in which they fre ely d isc u sse d their contribu-> tions to so m e of R o o se v e lt's fam ous a d d r e ss e s . T h ese w ritin gs m ay I or m ay not have helped to account for the fact that m o st of the lite r a - ! i ture on ghostw riting has been published during th e se past forty y e a r s . | t Second, the m u ltip licity of p resid en tia l duties began to a c c e le r a te at a m ark ed ly in c r e a se d rate during the R o o sev e lt era. P r im a r y D a ta .- - F o r pu rp oses of this study, prim ary data w ere idefined a s anything w ritten or spoken by a p resid en t o r p resid en tial sp eech w riter; any first-h a n d d escrip tio n s by o b s e r v e r s of the f o r e going. D esign of the Study The d esign of the study w as to p resen t an account of sp e e c h - iwriting in the Nixon ad m in istration and d is c u ss im p lication s for the c r itic of p resid en tial a d d r e ss e s . The chapters w ere organ ized (1) to igive a h is to r ic a l o v e rv iew of p resid en tia l ghostw riting; (2) to provide a t h is to r ic a l/c r it ic a l d escrip tion of the extent, nature, and functions of the Nixon sp eech w ritin g p o licie s and p r a c tic e s , 1968-1972; and (3) to a s s e s s the im pact and rh etorical im p lication s that sp eech w ritin g p r e sen ts to rh e to r ica l sc h o la r s of future p resid en tia l a d d r e sse s. The r e se a r c h m ethods em p loyed w ere a com bination of this l h isto r ic a l, e m p ir ic a l, and c r itic a l. T h ese m ethods have been defined j I by D ickens (197 l : 2 - - c l a s s m im eograph ed m a teria ls): H isto r ic a l m ethod is a r e se a r c h plan to d e sc rib e rela tion s i among past even ts occu rrin g during a given period of tim e by m ean s of con trolled ob servation of the r ec o rd s of past o b s e r v e r s. | i E m p ir ic a l m ethod is a r e se a r c h plan to d escrib e relation sh ip s j existin g at a given tim e am ong phenom ena by m ean s of con trolled ob servation but without attem pting to control or m odify the phe- 1 nom ena th e m se lv e s. C ritica l m ethod is a r e se a r c h plan to evaluate contem porary or h isto r ic a l even ts by applying se le c te d c r ite r ia to the d ir ec t or reported ob serv a tio n s of those ev en ts. The u se of th e se m ethods w as dictated by the nature of the problem ant^ of the data. T h us, Chapter III is predom inantly h is to r ic a l, Chapter IV j e m p ir ic a l, and Chapter V c r itic a l. , The principal h is to r ic a l studies cited in this study cen ter i around m odern (se e definitions of te r m s in thiB chapter) p r esid en ts. H ow ever, no attem pt w as m ade to conduct an in-depth study on each of the five p r e sid e n ts sin ce F ranklin D. R o o sev e lt. An in-depth study of any one of th em would probably require an en tire d isser ta tio n . In this study, h ow ev er, it se e m e d fe a sib le to d eterm in e if each m odern p r e si- j |dent u sed sp e e c h w r ite r s and to d eterm in e m ajor a n d /o r unusual c h a r - ja c te r istic s of h is u sage of sp eech w riter s. Such data would help to cla rify N ixon's p o lic ie s by co m p a riso n or con trast. | i Of n e c e s s ity , secon d ary so u r c e s provided m uch of the data for R o o sev e lt, Trum an, E isen h o w er, K ennedy, and Johnson b ecau se no in-depth stu d ies were found and p rim ary data w ere sca ttered through a variety of b io g ra p h ies, m e m o ir s , and the lik e. Among those cited w ere a r tic le s by White and H en erlid er (1954:37-41), R oss (1948:88), ' | and Woods ( 1957:77-78); and books by Keogh (1956), M ich elson (1944), ^ i ;Reedy (1970), R osen m an (1952), Safire (1972), S ch lesin g er (1965), and| S oren son (1963). 1 i When the r e se a r c h for this study w as contem p lated, it becam e obvious that an accu rate understanding of the Nixon sp eech w ritin g p r o c e ss could b est be obtained if consu ltation s with the w r ite rs th em - ise lv e s w ere arranged. L e tte r s , including a sy n o p sis of the proposed r e se a r c h outline, w ere sent to a ll of the then cu rren t Nixon sp eech - w riters: Raym ond K. P r ic e John J. M cLaughlin P a trick J. Buchanan L ee W. H uebner W illiam P. Safire John K. A ndrew s E lisk a A. H asek N oel Koch H arold (Tex) L ezar Jack M cDonald A letter and r e se a r c h sy n o p sis w as a lso sen t to fo rm e r Nixon sp eech w r ite r , W illiam F . G avin,through the o ffic e s of Senator J a m es Buck |ley w here Gavin w as em p loyed as a sp eech w riter. C orresp on d en ce with P r ic e and se v e r a l other w r ite r s betw een f i January and N ovem ber 1972 resu lted in an invitation fro m P r ic e (as the head of the W riting and R e se a r c h D ivision of the White H ouse Staff) J for the r e se a r c h e r to spend se v e r a l days in W ashington, D. C. , con - I ducting in terv iew s relative to the proposed study. T a p e-reco rd ed l s e s s io n s from N ovem ber 14-18 w ere conducted with P r ic e , H uebner, A n drew s, L e za r , M cDonald, and Gavin. Of the five w r ite r s not in t e r - | view ed , three w ere out of town during the taping s e s s io n s and two werej I com m itted by p reviou s appointm ents. A ll, h o w ev er, w ere co rd ia l to J the project and extended th eir b e st w ish e s. The ta p e -r e c o r d e d and I subsequent sten o tra n scrip tio n s of the s ix in terv iew s are c o n sid er ed as the m o st im portant p rim ary data for the study and are included in A p pendix A of this study. In ord er to stim u late r e sp o n se s from the Nixon w r ite r s , m any of the qu estion s u sed during the in terv iew s w ere p r e -p re p a r ed and i : i m em o r ize d by the r e se a r c h e r . H ow ever, som e of the q u estion s grew out of a n sw ers given by the in te r v ie w e e s. The qu estion s w ere d e signed to provide the in te rv iew ee s with as m uch latitude as p o ssib le in th eir an sw ers and y e t s till se c u r e pertinent and sp ec ific data. There are s e v e r a l ind ication s that the data resu ltin g fro m the in terv iew s with the Nixon w r ite r s are valid and reliable: 1. The granting of an in terview to a P h .D . candidate would not se e m of su fficien t im portance to justify anyone issu in g in stru ction s to withhold or d istort the inform ation given to the r e se a r c h e r . 2. The fact that in terv iew s w ere granted in d icates a w illin g n e ss on the part of the sp ee ch w r ite rs to d is c u ss and m ake public their w riting a c tiv itie s. 3. T here w a s, at the tim e of the in te r v ie w s, no reason to sup-[ I pose that the Nixon w r ite r s would te ll the r e se a r c h e r anything but the j truth. Although the w r ite rs could have sid e -ste p p e d or refused to i an sw er so m e q u estio n s, they did not. A ll qu estion s w ere a n sw ered I I unhesitatingly and openly. 4. The in terv iew s w ere all private and conducted on a o n e -to - i f one b a s is , with no attem pt e v e r m ade by any w r ite r to consu lt with i another w riter. A ca refu l rev iew of the in terv iew s in Appendix A in - i d icates that the w r ite r s reflected independent and d ifferen t view points, I including what m ay be c a lled a "norm al" am ount of d isa g reem en t. Foz exam p le, all a g reed that Nixon spoke ex tem p oran eou sly m ore often than he did from m an u scrip t, but they d isa g re ed in estim a tin g the p e r cen ta g e s. Som e w r ite rs said that Nixon alw ays spoke ex tem p o ra n e- Jously without note card s while o th ers rem ark ed that he flu ctu a ted - - so m e tim e s using th em , so m e tim e s not. Two w r ite r s contended that they seld o m if e v er w ere c a lled upon a s w r ite r s to argue points with I the P re sid e n t. Another w riter not only d isa g re ed but indicated that he I I was h ired b ecau se of his background in philosophy to ca refu lly review and so m e tim e s ch allen ge P r e sid e n tia l id e a s. 1° 5. The in terv iew s w ere apparently granted b eca u se P r ic e felt j that m uch of the sch o la rly work he had seen on p resid en tia l sp eech * ; w riting w as in accu ra te, so m e tim e s untrue, and even d isto rted . His e x p r e ss e d d e sir e was to provide a m o re r e a lis tic account. j 6. When asked if they d e sir ed a tra n sc rip t of the in terv iew forj pu rp oses of editing, c o r r e c tio n , or deletion before it w as u sed in the study, a ll of the w r ite rs said no. ( Of vital im portance to the study w as the d eterm in ation of those | I c r ite r ia by which the Nixon sp eech w ritin g could be sy ste m a tic a lly and | e ffectiv ely analyzed. Since it had been found that c er ta in p resid en ts i u sed sp e e c h w r ite r s in one way w hile oLher p resid en ts u sed them in | j other w a y s, the gu id elin es for in terview in g the w r ite r s and for ana- j lyzing N ixon's sp eech w ritin g p r a c tic e s w ere d erived from this know l e d g e . T hree m ajor gu id elin es for conducting the in terv iew s w ere: (1) the exten t, (2) the nature, and (3) the working p roced u res for f their job s. In planning the in te rv iew s, it w as decid ed to u se open- ended q u estion s as m uch as p o ssib le , hoping that the in te rv iew ee s would include d eta ils w hich the in v estig a to r had no way of fo r e se e in g . H ow ever, a few fo r e se e a b le d etails w ere probed when they could a p p rop riately be in serted into the co n v ersa tio n (for exam ple: What w ere the in te r v ie w e e 's rea ctio n s to the w ord "ghostw riting?"). Additional I d etails of the r e se a r c h d esign are indicated in the follow ing section . P r e v ie w of R em aining C hapters F ollow ing is a b rief outline of the organ ization of the rem ainder of the study: J Chapter II p r e sen ts a "R eview of the L iterature" co v erin g ! I a r tic le s , books, le tte r s , and other m a n u scrip ts which dealt in som e way with ghostw riting and rev e a le d c le fts in p resid en tia l speaking and i : | ghostw riting r e se a r c h . Chapter III ou tlin es the "Background, Context and B r ie f Historyj i of P r e sid e n tia l G hostw riting," in two parts: i 1. P r e sid e n tia l G hostw riting: W ashington Through H erbert H oover 2. P re sid e n tia l Speechw riting: F ranklin R o o sev e lt to 1968 t Chapter IV c o n sid e r s " P resid en t N ixon's P o licy on S p eech w r ite rs," under the follow ing captions: I 1. The W riting and R e se a r c h D iv ision a. G en eral D escrip tio n b. C om p osition of Nixon's Speechw riting Staff c. Backgrounds of the Nixon S p eech w riters d. S p ee c h w r ite rs' R eaction s to the T erm "G hostw riter" 2. N on -Sp eech w riting F unction of the D ivision 3. R e se a r c h Function of the D ivision i ' a. R e se a r c h for P r e sid e n tia l S p eech es b. R e se a r c h for N on -Sp eech w riting T ask s 12 4. Speechw riting Function of the D iv ision a. O verall View of P r o c ed u r es b. E xtem p oran eou s S p eech es c. M anuscript S p eech es i Chapter V d ea ls with "S peechw riters and the R h eto rica l Critic,"^ i d is c u ssin g su g g estio n s for the future c r itic of p resid en tial a d d r e s s e s , j ! under the follow ing captions: j | 1. The R h etorical C ritic Should Substitute the Word "Speech- j w riter" for "G hostwriter" 2. Speechw riting M ust Be Viewed in the C ontext of the Totality of P r e sid e n tia l R e sp o n sib ilitie s and W orkload I j 3. Speechw riting Must be E valuated in the Context of the [ C om p osition and D uties of a Given P r e sid e n t's S p eech - ■ w riting Staff 4. Sp eechw ritin g M ust Be E valuated in the Context of the Staff's C ontributions to the D ifferen t Types of P resid en tia l Speaking ! 5. The P r e sid e n c y as an "Institution" j Chapter VI contains the "Sum m ary and C on clu sion s." I In addition to th e se six ch a p ters, the study a lso inclu des the l follow ing: Appendix A, containing a lis t of the q u estion s u sed in co n - j i ducting the in terview s; Appendix B, containing sten o tra n scrip tio n s of j the in te rv iew s with the Nixon sp ee ch w r ite rs; and the bibliography. j Sum m ary of Chapter This chapter introduced the o rig in of the study and a statem en t of its problem together with its sign ifican ce. D efinitions of ter m s w ere follow ed by the d esign and m ethodology u sed , and the chapter conj- elu d ed with a p review of rem aining ch ap ters. CHAPTER U i REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE i The r e se a r c h for this study rev ea led s e v e r a l hundred a r tic le s ; and books which dealt in som e way with ghostw riting. In addition to thej I cu stom ary sch ola rly jo u rn a ls, it w as n e c e s s a r y , b ecau se of the w id e- | sp read appeal of ghostw riting as a top ic, to review popular m aga zin es i i and books. A su bstantial num ber of a ll of them are rev iew ed in this chapter for pu rp oses of providing background and context. j ! t S ou rces S earch ed | Su rveys w ere m ade of the follow ing lib r a r ie s: The U n iv ersity ,of Southern C aliforn ia, Huntington, The U n iversity of C alifornia at Los A n g ele s, The L os A n geles Public L ib rary, The U n iversity of Utah, Salt Lake City P ublic L ib rary, and B righam Young U n iversity. In using the D atrix fa cility , the follow ing key w ords w ere p ro gram m ed to d eterm in e what stu d ies, if any, had already been u n d er taken on ghostw riting: S p eech w riter P rep aration G hostw riter Speech P rep aration Ghost P r e sid e n tia l W riter P r e sid e n tia l i i 14 15 The follow ing journals w ere searched: Q uarterly Journal of i S p eech , Speech M onographs, Today's Speech, Journal of the A m e r ic a n ! F o r e n sic A s so c ia tio n , Speech T e a c h e r , Southern Speech J o u rn a l, A m erican S p eech , W estern S p eech , C entral States Speech J o u rn a l, Journal of C om m u n ication , P hilosophy and R h e to r ic , Etc: A R eview of G eneral S e m a n tic s, A m erican Q u a rterly , N ational Education A s s o - ciation Journal, P ublic P o lic y , Law and C ontem porary P r o b le m s, , A m erican P o litic a l S cien ce R e v ie w , W ashington M onthly, The National J ou rn al, Public Opinion Q u a rterly , The R e p o r te r , Public R elation s J o u rn a l, A m erica n M e r c u r y , The New R ep u b lic, A m erica n H e r ita g e , | I The Texas Q u a r ter ly , The A m erica n S c h o la r , M om ents in C on tem p o- j rary R h e to r ic . 1 r t The follow ing in d exes w ere u tilized in further attem pting to |locate m a te r ia ls pertaining to the g en era l field of p o litica l g h o st- i i iwriting: London T im es Index, International Index, A Guide to P eriod i-| c a l L itera tu re, Books in P r in t, New York T im es Index, R ead er's Guide to P e r io d ic a l L ite r a tu r e , P ublic A ffa irs Inform ation S e r v ic e , F ranklin M. K now er's "An Index of Graduate Work in the F ie ld of Speech," in Speech M onographs, Howard G ilk erson 's O utlines of R e se a r c h in G eneral Speech. N ew sp a p ers, m a g a z in e s, and g e n e ra l guides w ere so m e tim e s i fruitful, p articu larly the follow ing: N. W. A y e r 's D irecto ry of N e w s- ! ^ papers and P e r io d ic a ls , D isse r ta tio n A b str a c ts, D octoral D is s e r t a - 16 jtione. Donald B. G ilc h r ist's D octoral D isse r ta tio n s A ccep ted by A m erica n U n iv e r s itie s , P a lfr e y and C olem an 's Guide to B ibliograp hies of T h e se s, United States and Canada, The C h ristian S cien ce M on itor, N e w sw ee k , The Saturday E vening P o s t , New York T im es M agazin e, The Los A n g eles T im e s , U. S. N ews fa W orld R ep o rt, T im e , L ife, l j L ook, B u sin e ss W eek, W ashington P o s t , D e se r e t N e w s , Salt Lake Tribune, C urrent H istory and F oru m , Redbook, Saturday R eview , . i C o llie r 's , H a rp er 's, The New Y orker, St. Louis P o s t - D is patch, The j ' i P all M all G a z e tte , Wall S treet Journal, D enver P o s t , Book R eview | D ig e s t, N atu re, V ogue. S c r ib n e r 's , C o sm o p o lita n , Dun's R e v ie w , j H olid ay, C om m on w eal. Good H ou sek eep in g, N ation, F o r u m , Bookm an J i N ation ’s B u s in e s s , P u b lish er 's W eek ly, L itera ry D ig e s t , W r ite r , The j |P en W om an, W riter's D ig e s t, F a c ts on F i l e . S e v e r a l biographical citations w ere consulted: C urrent B iog- I ; raphy, Biography Index, D ictionary of A m erica n B io grap h y, Who's t Who in A m e r ic a . B ib liograp h ies of bibliographies w ere utilized: B ibliographic Index, B e ste r m a n 's The B eginnings of S ystem a tic B ib lio grap h y, K now er's A S e lec ted Bibliography of B ib liograp h ies for Studentb of S p eech , and D atrix. N o n -R e sea r c h L iterature on G hostw riting R h eto rica l c r itic s have long indicated the se r io u s im p lication s |inherent in ghostw riting and though th eir co n clu sio n s varied with j r e sp e c t to the sp ec ific e ffe c ts that ghostw riting had on r h eto rica l c r itic is m , the one fact on which n early a ll c r itic s a greed was that ghostw riting did bear d irectly and im portantly on the c r itic a l p r o c e s s , i I The th e s is of E r n e st G. B orm ann's "G hostwriting and the R he- ; I to r ic a l C ritic" (I960) was that the in c re a sin g p ractice of ghostw riting ; over the la st thirty y e a r s not only m ade rh eto rica l c r itic is m m o re difficu lt, but m ay also have actually d estroy ed the c r itic a l p r o c e ss ! altogeth er. This view point he attributed to two sc h o o ls of thought: ! I (1) " S p eak er-orien ted rh eto rica l c r itic is m ," w here the c r itic in v e s ti- j j gating a sp eech sought to have a thorough understanding of the p erso n j who authored the sp eech in o rd er to fa cilita te a ccu rate c r it ic is m , and '(2) " S p eech -orien ted rh eto rica l c r itic is m ," w here the wording of a sp ee ch w as c r itic iz e d accord in g to " artistic" p r in c ip les. In an sw erin g the qu estion , "Is G hostw riting H onest?" R a y mond Clapper (1939) m aintained that ghostw ritin g had b ecom e so c o m m onplace in p o litic s that it w as a lm o st taken for granted that a p o li ticia n was a ssu m e d not to have prepared h is own sp e e c h e s. C lapper acknow ledged that th ere w ere " d egrees of ghostw riting," although he fe lt that ghostw riting had ". . . grow n to such an extent that it is som e- j thing of a fraud on the e le cto r a te" (1939:69). E r n e st R. M ay, e x p r e ss in g a h isto r ia n 's co n cern (1953) over the p ra ctice of gh ostw ritin g, w rote that the m odern biographer can no 18 I I lon ger be sure exactly what role the ghostw riter plays in m odern p o li- | t ic s . Indicting p resid en ts from G eorge W ashington to Woodrow W ilson for the p r a c tic e , May m aintained that if the extent and d e g r ee of m od ern ghostw riting w as not better r e se a r c h e d and understood, A m erica n j I h isto r ia n s would be driven "back into the colon ial period or e ls e into i w riting busy fiction" (1953:104). j | "G hostwriting A gen cies" by Borm ann (1956) tra ced the h isto ry | i of the growth of such a g en cies dating back to the 1930s. Nam ing som e ! of the m ajor fir m s in the country, Borm ann d isc u sse d the s e r v ic e s ■ i a v a ila b le, as w ell as the p roced u res u sed in the "ghosting" operation. ! I He introduced som e of the c h a r a c te r istic s n e c e s s a r y for the g h o st w riter to be e ffe c tiv e , such as v e r sa tility , depth of know ledge, and availab ility. Borm ann concluded with a questionable attem pt at e v a lu a tin g a g h o stw r ite r's ju stifica tio n for h is p ro fessio n . H ow ever, he J cited neither sp ec ific g h o stw riters nor alluded to sp ec ific ghostw riting ! situ a tio n s. T hom as B en son had a "C onversation With a Ghost" (1968), :J o se f B e r g e r , who related how he had w ritten for the D em o cra tic N ational C om m ittee, the A ttorney General* Sam Rayburn, and many other c o n g r e ssm e n . B erg er adapted to w h om ever he w as working with. i If he knew the sp eak er w ell, his job as a sp ee ch w r ite r w as e a s ie r , b e cau se he knew the id ea s his sp eak er would accep t and th o se he would 1 j r eject. B erg er fe lt stro n gly that the ob jective of a sp ee ch w r ite r should be to m ake his principal com p ose as m uch of the sp eech as pos-j sib le . He also b elieved that m o st p olitician s p referred to u se one j sp ee ch w r ite r o v er a com m ittee of sp e e c h w r ite r s. The use of one ! sp ee ch w r ite r p erm its a c lo s e r relation sh ip betw een the principal and j h is w r ite r, and a lso allow s the w riter to develop id eas m ore effectivelyt R obert B o strom (1968), in d iscu ssin g Kennedy's nom inating sp eech for Adlai Stevenson, quoted K ennedy's sp ee ch w r ite r, Ted S oren son , and how they worked togeth er. Sorenson indicated that the "Kennedy style" w as the sp e e c h w r ite r 's s ty le , b ecau se Kennedy never ! I pretended that he had tim e to prepare fir s t drafts. I I "Franklin R o o sev e lt's Speech P reparation ," by E a rn est B ran - I denburg (1949), delineated the h elp R o o sev e lt was given in h is sp eech j j preparation. While there w ere those who cla im ed that R o o sev e lt was contented to sit by and let oth ers sim p ly dictate what he would sa y , others h e ld --a n d particu larly h is c lo s e s t a d v is o r s--th a t R o o sev e lt actually wrote h is own sp e e c h e s. R em arked Brandenburg: Those who w orked with R o o sev e lt r esp ec ted the fact that it was he who would and did m ake the final d e c is io n s. He often u tilized vast r e so u r c e s to obtain know ledge or furnish id e a s, but the final thought and the final form of e x p r e ss io n w ere his own. (1949:217) B randenberg a lso co n trasted sp eech preparation habits of R o o sev elt land Kennedy. While Kennedy seld o m m ade fir s t drafts of sp e e c h e s , I leaving that task to Soren son , R o o sev e lt alw ays dictated or wrote a f ir s t draft. U .S . N ew s i t W orld R eport (F eb ru ary 13, 1959) published an j I a r tic le on "Building a 'White H o u se 1 on Capitol H ill," w h erein they m ade a sligh t r efe r e n c e to the then Senator Lyndon Johnson's "brain tru st." This was a lo o se ly knit group of m en , m o stly outside go v ern - i i m en t, who provided Johnson with help on his im portant policy d e c i- j sio n s and sp eech drafting. N ew sw eek (N ovem ber 23, 1959) conducted a study of the rap- I idly grow ing num ber of b u sin ess corp oration s that w ere not only devot-J ing m ore attention to the n e c e s s ity of th eir e x ec u tiv es being able to i speak w e ll, but that w ere also hiring sp ea k ers to se ll their m e s s a g e to! the public. The Wall S treet Journal (January 4, I960) c a r r ie d a p iece on I ' I the ro le sp ee ch w r ite rs play in w riting sp ee ch es for b u sin e ss e x e c u - | tiv e s. j I R ichard Ek w rote on "Working With a Ghost" and concluded I that: G h ostw riters are em p loyed m ore often today b ecau se b u sin ess lea d er s a re m ore aw are of the need for effe ctiv e com m unication and b ecau se they n eed help with a grow ing burden of speaking com m itm en t. . . . [B e c a u se ] the ghost . . . often is blocked from giving expected sa tisfa ctio n b ecau se his em p lo y er does not know how to work e ffe c tiv e ly with a sp eech w riter . . . it is the purpose of this a r tic le to su g g est w ays to im prove the w r ite r - apeaker relation sh ip . (1967:23) I Ek went on to offer ten su g g estio n s which he c la im ed w ere "d istilled from work in the School of E x p erien ce and the C ollege of Hard Knocks' (1967:23). ______________________________________________ 21 In h is "Ethics of G hostw ritten Speeches" (1961), Borm ann c o m pared ghostw riting to the te le v isio n quiz show scandals of I960. He p o sited that eth ica l q u estion s inherent in ghostw riting need d iscu ssin g I b eca u se of the elem en t of deception involved. He se e m e d to be trying to refute a ll the argum en ts advanced in defen se of the p ra ctice rather | than dealing with the m o re im portant con sid era tion of why ghostw riting ' i is unethical. It w as not until the next to the la st page that Borm ann posed the c r u c ia l q u estion , "How m uch borrow ing is e th ica l? " and I then attem pted to deal with it (1961:266). H is su g g estio n s for delin eat-| I ing the boundaries of p la g a r ism , language fa c to r s , r esp o n sib ility to aud ien ce, and sch o la rly r e se a r c h posed im portant q u estion s. j l I "Ghost W nting: Im p lication s for P ublic A d d ress" was the title j of a lectu re given by M arie Hochmuth N ich ols (1967) and was included j j ias a chapter in R hetoric and C r itic is m . M ost of the chapter w as de- I ---------------------------------------- voted to tracing som e of the h is to r ic a l roots and to so m e d e g r ee the i ju stifica tio n s for ghostw riting. She w orried about the e ffe c ts of w id e sp read ghostw riting on the validity of past and future r e se a r c h by r h e to r ic a l c r it ic s . She concluded by stating: "O bviously our w ork as c r itic s m u st be m ore tentative; ob viou sly little can be taken for Igranted" (1967:48). P e te r B art (1964) in "The Busy G hosts" wrote about g h o st- jw riters in the b u sin e ss w orld. H is focus was on fragm en ted w orks of I variou s gh osts and provided so m e insigh t into the n eed for g h o stw r ite rs. 22 "Speech C r itic is m by J o u rn a lists" by H erm ann S telzn er (1962) provided a n sw e r s to q u estion s su ch as: What m ethods and in stru m en ts did the c r itic a l jo u rn a list em p loy when e x e r c isin g his c r itic a l judg m ent ? Which m ethods and in stru m en ts w ere m o st often u sed ? What was the quality of the resu ltin g r e p o r ts? The p o ssib ility that sp e e c h - | w r ite r s w ere u sed in the I960 P r e sid e n tia l cam paign w as not even m entioned. The im p lic it assu m p tion se e m e d to be that the jo u rn a lists , I w ere critiquing the candid ate's own w ords. I i An ed ito ria l in The New Y orker (F eb ru ary 23, 1952) d is c u sse d j im p lica tio n s of a c o u r se in gh ostw riting once offered at the A m erican U niversity; e. g. , how m uch of the sp eech belongs to the one who wrote it v e r su s the one who spoke it. The a r tic le ended with a statem en t | / that sp ea k er s should r e s is t the tem ptation to hire g h o stw riters. In an a r tic le on the b u sin ess of term paper se llin g , R obert D allos (1972) pointed out not only the educational, but a lso the finan cial problem s in th is type of ghost work. The a rticle su g g ested potentially strik in g d iffe r e n c e s betw een the gh ostw riting of te r m pap ers and the ighostw riting of sp e e c h e s. J e rr y G illam (1972) w rote on term paper sa le s and how the , C aliforn ia State A sse m b ly had banned th eir sa le for the pu rp ose of im proving g r a d e s. M ilton D ickens and Ruth Schw artz (1971) m ade the point that attorn eys arguing before the Suprem e Court of the United States are 23 unable to rely on g h o stw r ite rs and are forbidden to read their argu - j m en ts from m a n u scrip ts. R, W. H einen's a r tic le on "G hostwriting in D epartm en ts of the F ed er a l G overnm ent" d escrib ed variations in the sp eech w ritin g p ro- i c e s s in s e v e r a l fed era l d epartm en ts. H einen a lso devoted space to a j ju stificatio n of teaching sp eech w ritin g as part of a c o lle g e curriculum : I think e v er y student studying sp eech should r e a liz e that in p u rsu ing his c a r e e r m o re than lik ely he w ill find o c c a sio n s when he w ill be phrasing thoughts for som eone e ls e to speak or sign . . . . A sp eech c o u r se s e e m s to m e to be an appropriate place to learn this fact of life , even though "ghostw riting" is not r e str ic te d to i s p e e c h w r itin g . (1956:12) "A Ghost N ever T ells" (1945) lent c red ib ility to the myth that ( i f th e re was som eth in g clan d estin e about ghostw riting by being authored lanonym ously. The s e c r e tiv e elem en t w as th erefo re heightened. j R ev ea led in "The P riv a te L etters of the P resid en t" is a note by th e late P re sid e n t E isen h o w er (1959) to one of his sp e e c h w r ite r s. The letter noted in part: A ll m orning long 1 exp ected to se e you . . . in m y su ite. A p par ently with the docum ent a ll fin ish ed and put to bed, you decided y o u r se lf to hit the sack and stay th e re . In any ev en t, I am sure , you know how deeply 1 app reciate the fine r e su lts that you did so m uch to produce. On e v e r y side I have had co m p lim en ts c o n c e r n ing the content of the t a lk - - l am so r r y you could not take o v er a lso its d e liv e ry . . . . (1959:106) H arry Trum an granted an in terv iew to Eugene White and C la ir jH enderlider regarding his public speaking w h erein he stated that ". . . I ;as P r e sid e n t, 1 had such a d v iso rs as C h arles M urphy, C h arlie R o s s, David Lloyd, and David B ell. T heir function w as to aid in gathering m a ter ia l and in putting sp e e c h e s together" (1954:38). At another place in the in terv iew , Trum an m entioned that he alw ays took great pains t with ev ery form al a d d r e ss, with each sp eech going through from three to ten d ra fts, and o c c a sio n a lly m ore (1954:39-40). The in terview was , e x c e lle n t in pointing how Trum an w as different from R o o sev e lt, E is e n h ow er, or Kennedy. In fa ct, Trum an c le a r ly indicated d iffe re n c es in his own p r a c tic e, con trastin g "form al" with "extem pore" sp e e c h e s. \ R u s s e ll W indes (1961) studied "E ffective and Ineffective P r e s i- i dential Cam paign Speaking" and analyzed certa in cam paign sp e e c h e s ofj A dlai Steven son in the 1956 P re sid e n tia l co n test to draw som e con clu - I sio n s regarding fa cto rs which accounted for s u c c e s s or failu re of the j ! s p e e c h e s. Under "P reparation," Windes co n sid ered the sign ifican ce and relative contribution of S teven son 's sp ee ch w r ite rs in the p rep ara - tion of sp eech . W indes su ggested a c r itic a l m odel that m ight prove j valuable for an asp irin g p olitical sp eech c r itic in that it co n sid ered the im p act of the sp ee ch w r ite r. i B orm ann (1961) w rote a reply to an a r tic le by Donald K. Sm ith (1961) further elaborating h is position on the gh ostw riting problem and enunciating d ifficu lties, such as how one d ivid es what can be condoned fro m what m ust be condem ned. I Public relatio n s p ractition s are con cern ed with ghostw riting 'and J a m es F . Donohue (1970) w rote an a r tic le on "How to U se the i [Fourth P e r so n Singular." This a r tic le m ainly con cern ed its e lf with notj I ihe fir s t three p erson s: "I," "You," and "He," but with the fourth p e r - j son, "I" w ritten for som ebody e ls e . Donohue co m m en ced with a sta te - l m en t denouncing the ghostw riting p ra ctice as "dishonest," but then pro-* i ceed ed to outline how to c a rr y on the p ra ctice e ffe ctiv e ly for "the j b oss." I R obert B endiner (1952) w rote on "M em bers of an Ancient Though Unhonored C raft, They A nsw er an Insatiable Dem and for W ords." The a r tic le cen tered m o stly on c r itic is m of a ghostw riting co u r se offered by the A m erica n U n iversity. Citing c r it ic is m of g h o st w riting from Suprem e Court J u stice R obert Jack son , who looked on the ! p ra ctice as "debasing the in tellectu a l cu rren cy ," B endiner did allow for a d efen se by the ghostw riting c o u r se 's in str u c to r, J. D ouglas Knox. ;He m aintained that gh ostw riting at b est w as "absolutely leg itim a te," I but argued that like any other p r o fessio n , gh ostw riting m u st have its eth ical stan dards. T hese standards he strove to teach as part of h is ghostw riting c o u r se . He concluded by stating: "Betw een th e se e x tr e m e s [of ghostw riting] are innum erable g r a d a tio n s--e th ic a l and lit - e r a r y --a n d it is h ere that the good ghost tip toes. There a r e , in short, sp ea k ers of a ll sh ades and sh ades for all sp eak ers" (1952:36). F r e d a K irchw ay w rote on "Ghosts" and m aintained that "today [every rich m an and e v e r y public m an o v erflo w s with a d e sir e to figure a lso as a m an of le tte r s . . . . Thus the p r o fessio n of ghostw riting flo u r is h e s. . ." (1 9 2 9 :2 3 1 ). Her m ain com p lain t se e m e d to be that if we have g h o stw r ite r s, why not soon have g h o st-m u sic ia n s and g h o st- scu lp tors ? "Ghost W riting," by R ollin H artt (1933), d ecla red that g h o st w r ite r s can be anything they want, from p u g ilists to c o lle g e p resid en t, - j a ll at the strok e of a pen. Hartt a lm o st ap olo getically rev ea led the extent and d egree to which he w as a g h ostw riter and then p roceed ed to | I c a st doubt on the authorship of S h ak esp eare. H artt's solution for h a lt-| j ing the rapid growth in gh o stw riters w as to ch eck their patrons. He ob served : "Anybody can be convinced of anything; have we not had T ech n ocracy? M eanw hile, a lot of th ese g h o st-w ritten people can w rite and som e of them have a gift of s e lf-e x p r e s s io n which it is a ' sh am e for us g h o stw riters to d iscou rage" (1933:226). i In a d d ressin g a Phi B eta Kappa banquet, R ichard D. M orris (1957) rem ark ed that A lexander H am ilton ’s f ir s t draft of W ashington’s F a r e w e ll A d d r e s s, the ghostw ritten v e r sio n read e v er y F eb ru ary 22nd in a com bined s e s s io n of the United States C o n g r e ss, w as d elivered by W ashington with very little change. The unity betw een sp eak er and sp e e c h w r ite r , according to M o r r is, " exem p lifies that identity of p o lit ic a l philosophy which ch a r a cter ize d the g r ea t collab oration betw een the ifirst P re sid e n t and fir s t S e c re ta r y of the T reasury" (1957:7). J In "C on fession s of a S p eech w riter," D aniel Lynch said that the jreason so m any e x e c u tiv e s m ade dull sp e e c h e s was th eir " m isu se, or i_____________________________________________________ — ____________________________________________ _ 27 1 Jionuse, of a sp eech w riter" (1965:42). Lynch lauded the work of l sp ee ch w r ite rs and indicated that m o st b u sin ess sp ee ch es that failed I did so b ecau se of som e languid public relation s man who thought he \ could becom e a sp eech w riter ju st by doing it. He intim ated that in ord er to b ecom e an effectiv e sp ee ch w r ite r, one m ust learn certain p rin cip les of the art, p rin cip les such as a c lo se working relation sh ip ' f with the sp ea k er, c r e a tiv ity , and so on. The m ain thrust w as that | speechm aking does not have to be an arduous and tim e-co n su m in g ! i ! chore if it is prop erly planned. i E ric Goldman (1962) co n sid ered many of the P re sid e n ts of the J United States (W ilson, H arding, C oolidge, R o o sev e lt, Trum an, and i E isen h ow er) in co n cert with th eir speaking and sp ee c h w r ite r s. He | concluded that gh o stw riters played u sefu l r o le s by helping P re sid e n ts ;who had little fa cility for the public platform . They a lso helped P r e s i dents by form ulating p h raseology and injecting a d eg ree of lite ra r y l crea tiv ity into P r e sid e n tia l sty le . Goldm an saw the role and function j I of the P r e sid e n tia l sp ee ch w r ite r as being varied and dependent on the ! m an for whom the w riter w as working: . . . there are gh osts and there are g h o sts, w riting w raith s of a ll d e g r e e s of lite r a r y se n sitiv ity , in telligen ce and human un d er standing. A P r e sid e n t sa y s a good deal about h im se lf by the m an he c h o o se s to say things for him . (1962:13) I | C. W. M etcalf, in a d d ressin g h im se lf to the qu estion of |speechw riting c r e d e n tia ls, stated: The fact is that ghost w riting is neither all black nor all white. It is wholly true that busy m en do not have the tim e to undertake, ; th e m s e lv e s , the ted ious r e se a r c h and the ca refu l polish in g of ' p h ra ses n e c e s s a r y to produce an effectiv e sp eech or a r tic le . They m ust d elegate th e se functions to m en w hose tim e and e n e r g ie s need not be applied in the a ctiv e d irectio n of b u sin ess or g o v ern m ent. (1944:11) 1 i i He contended that the u se of a g h ostw riter n eith er detracted from the j I I statu re of the sign er nor did it add to that of its w r ite r. He further I su g g ested that the fa cility of e x p r e ssio n was not n e c e s s a r ily the clue to| the ability and fitn e ss of a m an for public office. In fa ct, he said that j i . . cu rren t happenings in C o n g re ss have proved that so m e of our ! b est o r a to r s are the p o o rest r ep re sen ta tiv e s of the people who e le c te d th e m ” (1944:11). I U .S . N ew s & W orld R e p o r t, in an a r tic le on "Who's W riting L B J's S p eech es," sought a n sw e rs to qu estion s such as: A re the words jhis ow n? Who are the White H ouse sp ee ch w r ite rs now ? The a rticle d is c u sse d L B J's sp e e c h w r ite r s Goodwin, B usby, M o y er s, V alenti, and Bundy and the P r e sid e n t's relation sh ip with each of them . The a r tic le also alluded to the fact that sp eech w ritin g rep resen ted m ore than just benign d isre g a rd on the part of Johnson; rath er, that Johnson got so c lo s e to his sp e e c h w r ite r s that they actu ally w rote h is thoughts (1965:57). R ichard L. Strout w rote on "B efore R adio, TV, and Ghost [W riters," attem pting to indicate how m odern p resid en ts w ere vastly ! (different in th eir White H ouse op eration s from e a r lie r p r e sid e n ts. 2 9 I He stated: "Today's sp e e c h e s prepared in part by other hands are I taken for granted. With the com p lexity of m odern a ffa irs one m an ca n not hope to be fa m ilia r with e v er y d etail of e v er y subject. " He went on i to indicate how Woodrow W ilson w rote h is own sp e e c h e s and that sin ce ! t W ilson's tim e the White H ouse staffs have constan tly ex p an d ed --tryin g ! in so m e way to link this staff growth to the growth in popularity of i gh o stw riters (I960:E d itorial Section). "Ghost W riting and H istory" w as the topic of an a r tic le by ! i E r n e st May in The A m erica n Scholar (1953:459-465). R eferrin g to 1 i ghostw riting as "a shady secon d cou sin of p la g a rism ," May attem pted to en u m erate su ch ob jects to ghostw riting as: ( 1) the voter m ay get i ! from g h o st-w ritten sp e e c h e s a fa lse im p r e ssio n of a candidate; and i (2) that th e se fa lse im p r e s sio n s pass on into the h isto ry books to fur- I ther m islea d future gen eration s. T his la st objection se e m e d to be the b a sis for his a r tic le . He stated: 1 H istory is w ritten from the testim on y of firsth and o b s e r v e r s - - from their d ia r ie s, le t te r s , sp e e c h e s and autob iograp hies. H is to r ic a l truth cannot depend on secondhand interp retation any m ore than ju stice can depend on h ea rsa y . And a g h o st-w ritten d iary, le tte r , sp eech or autobiography is secondhand te stim o n y , the ghost w r ite r 's interp retation of what h is em p loy er said or thought. (1953:459) "G hostw riters Give B o ss the Word" d isp e lled the notion that sp e e ch w r ite rs crank out w ords which e x ec u tiv es m in d le ss ly speak by |statin g, in part: 30 The im age of the b u sin essm a n m in d le ssly mouthing w ords pumped | into his head by his ghost is la rg ely a fiction . . . . ’'Canned” ' ■ sp e e c h e s do e x is t in moBt c o m p a n ie s, and they get a lot of c u r rency at K iwanis lun ch eon s, but m o st top e x ec u tiv es shun them . (1967:72) In further defending the role and n e c e s s ity of sp e e c h w r ite r s , one b u si- i n e ss execu tiv e (unnamed) contended that at b e st, the finish ed sp eech w as the r esu lt of c lo s e collab oration . Continuing, he explained: I don't know how you could w rite a finish ed scrip t for a guy . . . u n less you lived in h is hip pocket. C o m in g 's top b r a ss follow a sim p le rule that inhibits g h o stin g --th e y only speak on subjects they know, only when they fe e l they have som ething to sa y , and | they keep it b rief. (1967:72) j j B u sin e ss Week ran a story on how to acquire the s e r v ic e s of a gh ostw riter. A fter relatin g how such s e r v ic e s could be obtained, the a r tic le stated: "Like m o st b u s in e s s e s , ghostw riting has its c h a r la - | ! tan s. A s a safeguard, ask the L ibrary of C o n g re ss or the New York |T im es to check backgrounds of w r ite rs you are con sid erin g" (1954: 176). I The R ep orter c a r r ie d an a rticle by W illiam M iller on Theodore S oren son , JF K 's ch ief sp e e c h w r ite r , which detailed S o ren so n 's b ack ground qu alification s and in volvem en t with the fo rm e r C hief E x ecu tive. C oncerning his role as sp ee ch w r ite r, the a r tic le observed : S oren son certa in ly appeared . . . to be m uch m ore than K ennedy's " sp eech w riter" or "rhetorician"; he se e m e d m ore n early h is in te lle c tu a l co llab o rato r and . . . c o -d e c is io n -m a k e r . He did t w rite the balan ced, in verted , and a llite r a tiv e s e n te n c e s , with I their rh ym es and p a r a lle lis m s , and with their . . . rath er m e - | chanical sca tterin g of quotations from the G reat. . . . But S oren - i son w as a lso , and m o re im portantly, the m ain participant in the 31 d ecisio n s in and behind and around the sp e e c h e s. (1964:27) Lyndon Johnson's sp eech staff w as partially rev iew ed in " D em o cra t T ries for Lead in Space S tatesm an sh ip ." The a r tic le pointed out I that early in his Senate c a r e e r Johnson felt the need for staff organiza-j tion and la ter , when his duties in the Senate in c r e a se d , he cam e to rely m o re h eavily on his co m m ittee staff. A s th ese duties in c r e a se d , he j developed a staff within a staff to handle planning, g en era l str a teg y , j and sp eech w ritin g. The a r tic le related how Johnson u sed this staff in the developm ent of h is sp eech to the D em o cra tic c o n feren ce in 1958, str e s s in g that w hile Johnson relied heavily on the su g g estio n s from his sp eech staff, the final product w as h is own. F or ex a m p le, after going I through five u n sa tisfa cto ry drafts and s till not being sa tisfie d , Johnson said: "Give it to m e," and he went to work on the draft in longhand. Later that night Johnson had a sp eech that he liked and by 1:00 A. M. it w as ready to be copied (1958:29-30). i H erb ert C o rey , in an a rticle entitled "Ghosts That Haunt the | H ustings," d irected attention to the sp ee c h w r ite r s that work in the fed era l bu reaucracy. Throughout the a r tic le , C orey laid s t r e s s on the contributions o ffered by sp eech w riters: i M ost of them [g h o stw r ite rs] work for b u s in e s s , industry and finance. They are u sefu l, even valuable. They reduce the f r e quently clu ttered thoughts of th eir p rin cip als to in tellig ib le o rd er. . . . The r e s t of the gh osts work in govern m ent. . . . (1948:43) i I i The a r tic le intim ated that sp eech w ritin g w as g en era lly m isu n d ersto od t L _ _______ _________ ___________________ __________________ 32 and d iffered according to who w as doing what for whom . i On F eb ru ary 23, 1952, The New Y orker m agazin e contained an a r tic le entitled, "A C ou rse in G hostw riting," in which ghostw riting was denunciated: . . great sp ee ch es are as m uch a part of a m an as his i 1 \ ey eb a lls or his in te stin e s. . . . If L incoln had had help on his G ettys- burg sp eech , the thing would a lm o st have started 'E ig h ty -sev en y ea rs i | ago . . . 1 showing that the ghost w as right on the job" (p. 23). In a | reply to this a ss e r tio n , V ictor Ratner argued: i I That is lik ely to be true of great sp e e c h e s. But one m ight note J that the other o ra to rs at G ettysburg, a lso operating wholly on j their own, had no difficulty in avoiding g r e a tn e ss. And anyhow the str ic tu r e s on ghostw riting, how ever witty and valid, overlook the other sid e of the m atter: the d ism a l dam age done in our tim e by people who do their own w riting, in situation s w here they j shouldn't. (1952:91) j R atner went further and proffered a strong c a se for the adoption of sp ee ch w r ite rs and concluded: G ranted there are a few people (like Lincoln) who com bined g e n uine w riting sk ill with other g rea t s k ills . G ranted th ere are m any ! im portant things that ev ery man should w rite for h im se lf (letter s to his ch ild ren , for exam ple). It would s till help a ll p a rties c o n cern ed if com m unication w ere understood to be a sp e c ia l and d if ficu lt function, not sim p ly an exten sion of anybody's childhood ability to speak and w rite. It would be a beginning of an an sw er to the question: "What sh all we do about our com m u n ication s problem ?" (1952:92) In d isc u ssin g "The Haunted H ouse, " M alcolm C ow ley laid out a so r t of ch ron ological sequence of sp eech w ritin g in te r m s of e r a s . He c o v er ed the tw en ties and th ir tie s as e r a s p o s s e s s in g th eir own unique req u irem en ts regarding ghostw riting. The ghostw riting r e fe r e n c e s pertained m o stly to lite ra r y fig u res and ghosts of the w ritten w ord (as opposed to the spoken word) (1948:481-482). j "A B eso m for Ghosts" aptly d escrib ed the conten ts of an articlej w hich appeared in the A p ril 2 5, 1931 is s u e of the L iterary D igest c o n cerning ghosts in the publishing b u sin ess. The m ain com plaint of the a r tic le w as that in the past authorship w as attributed to p erso n s who i i u su ally had little or nothing to do with w riting the item in question I (1931:22). i i J. G eorge F r e d e r ic k defended sp eech w ritin g as "A L egitim ate i P r o fe ssio n a l S e r v ic e," stating that . . it is a d istin ct d is s e r v ic e to the ca u se of d em o cra cy and fre e d isc u ssio n to sp read su sp icio n as to the honesty and d esira b ility of ghost writing" (1939:69). He argued | that gh ostw riting is not a c a se of one m an parroting the words of another, but is perform ing: . . . a d istin ct public se r v ic e b ecause he (the gh ostw riter) does | what the public its e lf would like to do and what the jou rn alistic j r ev iew er has alw ays d o n e--h e talks to the "ghostee" to bring out an gles of his view s o r subject which to the public s e e m in co m p lete, vague, needful of expounding and elucidation. (1939:70) l While F r e d e r ic k did adm it that it is rather easy to c ite the abu ses in volved in ghostw riting, he also felt that "if we are going to c a ll ev ery piece of w riting d ish on est which is sign ed by som eon e who did not c o m pose e v e r y sen ten ce in it, then a great deal of w riting w ill have to be jexpurgated or outlawed" (1939:70). i N ew sw eek (July 4, I960, p. 23), in "A C lo se r Look at Ken- j nedy," m ade referen ce to one of the late P r e sid e n t's habits that startedj t when he w as ju st a teen a g er. B eca u se he w as fa scin a ted by language I u sa g e, h is r e sp e c t for the speaking and w riting of others was developed! I e a r ly . He started c o llec tin g good q u otes, typed out and kept in a lo o s e i leaf quote book. Often he would interrupt his reading with, "th ere's a ! I j h e ll of a ph rase," and then read it aloud. A ssu m in g the truth of th ese i fa c ts , a leg itim a te in feren ce m ight be that in choosin g sp e e c h w r ite r s, ; I K ennedy's c r ite r ia w ere quite d ifferent from th ose of, say, Johnson, \ E isen h o w er, or Trum an. C h arles R o s s , one of H arry T rum an's c lo s e s t a s s o c ia te s and principal sp e e c h w r ite r s , related "How Trum an Did It" in the 1942 i P re sid e n tia l cam paign. The a r tic le m ade ca refu l m ention of the r e la tionship R o ss enjoyed with Trum an as not only a confidant, but as a tru sted and m uch relied -u p on sp eech w riter. O b served R oss; I w as asked frequently if so m e fam ous w riter or oth er, say R obert Sherw ood, w as being brought in tu a s s is t. The an sw er w as alw ays "No." Not that outsid e help w as not w e lc o m e --w e did have som e of it--b u t it w as felt that th ose who knew the P r e sid e n t, knew his id e a s, knew the kind of sen ten ces and w ords he lik ed , could do a m ore sa tisfa c to ry job for him than any p r o fessio n a l w r ite r, h ow e v e r brillian t. (1948:88) The a r tic le alluded not only to the c lo s e working relation sh ip Trum an had with R o s s, but a lso other m em b er s of h is sp eech w ritin g staff, j jsuch as M atthew C onnelly, Clark M. C lifford, and C h arles S. Murphy. 4 / I I 35 "So What's Wrong With G hosts?" asked H arry D evlin in reply to i co m m en ts by United States Suprem e Court J u stic e s Jackson and Frank- further that ghostw riting had debased the in tellectu a l cu rren cy in c i r culation and w as a type of counterfeitin g that invited no d efen se. D ev- ; 1 i I i lin e x p r e ss e d su r p r ise that: i . . . two ju r ists should c a ll a p ro fessio n a l rew rite of som ebod y's id eas a d eb asem en t of in tellectu a l cu rren cy . Offhand, we can't think of anything m ore v e r b o se , tir e so m e and ripe for r ev isio n than the a v era g e leg al docum ent. A fter y e a r s of wading through b r iefs that use six verb s to d e sc rib e one action , you'd think a judge would be the fir s t p erson to w elco m e a "decoy author" who j could turn prolixity into e a sy and understandable E n glish . (1950:74) ' i D evlin c h a r a c te r ise d sp eech w ritin g a s legitim ate and n e c e s s a r y , s ta t ing that he could not se e anything cou n terfeit or d isg ra cefu l about i t - - at le a s t it is no w orse than hiring a p r o fessio n a l law yer who ghosts som ething for a clien t to sig n his nam e to. i Jack G ravlee r e se a r c h e d "Franklin D. R o o se v e lt's Speech P rep ara tion During H is F ir s t National Cam paign" and rem arked: "He I [R o o s e v e lt] a ss e m b le d a staff which w as d estin ed to play a sign ifican t part by providing a continuous flow of sp eech m a ter ia l throughout the cam paign" (1964:437). It w as this sa m e sp eech staff with whom R o o sev elt co n ferred on e v er y speaking o c ca sio n . They gathered m a te r ia l for h im , sifted through the m ultitude of id eas subm itted to him ,by various p eop le, w rote drafts for h im , and p rivately co u n seled him on sp eech preparation. H is u se of a sp eech w ritin g "brain trust" proved to be a m o st valuable r e so u r c e . "Theodore R o o se v e lt's P rin c ip les of Speech P rep aration and • D elivery" w ere outlined by W illiam B ehl, who noted that R o o sev elt depended to a great extent on the advice and su g g estio n s of o th ers. In addition, he said that R o o sev elt m ade it a rule to se e k the knowledge i I and advice of oth ers concerning the content of h is sp e e c h e s. R o o s e velt usually w rote the fir s t draft of each of his sp e e c h e s and then sought out the advice of any num ber of sp ee ch w r ite r frien d s who would co u n sel him on recom m en d ed changes in the text. B ehl explained: i " R oosevelt drew heavily on the know ledge of oth ers when he fe lt h is j own inadequacy on a given subject or when he thought it w ise to find out[ how p o litica l lea d er s w ere thinking about c o n tr o v e r sia l topics" (1945: j 112). i I I In A Thousand D a y s , Arthur S ch iesin g er com m ented on John jKennedy's u se of sp eech w riters: A s for the m an u scrip ts th e m s e lv e s , they cam e m o stly from two m e m b e r s of his sen a to ria l staff, Ted S oren son and a young H ar vard Law School graduate and fo r m e r F ran k fu rter law c le r k , i R ichard N. Goodwin. A third m em b er of the sen a to ria l staff, M yer F eld m an , helped o c c a sio n a lly in the w riting and p resid ed ! o v er p rob lem s of r e s e a r c h and c le a r a n c e . In addition, two gifted m agazin e w r ite r s , John B artlow M artin, who had w orked in the S teven son cam p aign s, and Joseph K raft, se r v e d as lite ra r y advance m en , checking on the m ood and is s u e s in lo c a litie s w here he w as to sp eak , and sending back r e fe r e n c e s , id eas and language to S oren son and Goodwin. An o ffice in W ashington, d irected by I P r o fe s s o r A rchibald Cox of the H arvard Law School, c o llec ted | r e se a r c h m em oran d a from exp erts a c r o ss the country and turned them into sp eech d rafts. (1959:69) In d ifferent parts of the book, S c h ie sin g e r m ade lib era l r efer - ence to the c lo s e and often intim ate a sso c ia tio n of Kennedy to his 37 I I principal sp ee ch w r ite r, Ted Sorenson. In one p la c e, S ch iesin g er r e - j m arked that Kennedy said about S orenson , "Ted is ind ispensable to m e" (1965:71). L ater S ch iesin g er again com m en ted on the unusual c lo s e n e s s of Kennedy and Sorenson: i Though he (Kennedy) w as a p erfectly com petent w r ite r, he ra rely had tim e to com p ose his own sp e e c h e s. . . . Ted S oren son w as, of c o u r s e , h is m ain r e lia n ce . They had worked c lo s e ly together for a decade, and on th ese m a tter s their m inds rolled in unison. . . . (1965:75) An insightful account of p resid en tia l sp eech w ritin g from Frank-] i ! lin D. R o o sev e lt to Nixon w as N ew sw eek 's "A P r e sid e n tia l Ghost j Story" (January 11, 1971, p. 23), pointing out that sp eech w ritin g has been given "an u n d eserved bad nam e." It quoted from Scam m on and j t W attenberg's The R eal M ajority, that: : f f When the P r e sid e n t w alks up to that podium with that black ring binder notebook, it doesn 't m ake a damn bit of d ifferen ce who w rote what p a r a g r a p h --it's his sp eech . The sp ee ch w r ite r is a c rea tu re of the P r e sid e n t, not the other way around. (1970:100) T im e ran a story on one of E isen h o w er's fo rm e r sp eech w riters, E m m et John H ughes, entitled "A F ine Hand, " w hich tra ced the b a ck ground of H ughes, indicating the sp eech w ritin g relation sh ip he had with E isen h ow er and later on with N elson R o ck efeller (June 20, I960, p. 11) In "G hostwriting B efore F ranklin D. R o o sev e lt and the Radio," Norwood B rigan ce traced som e ghostw riting p r a c tic es from Antiphon to the p r e sen t tim e. He touched upon the valu es of p olitical sp ee ch - [writers when he observed : 38 . . . m em b er s of this p r o fessio n [g h o stw r ite rs] have e x er te d a strong influence on the flow of h istory . S o m etim es they have i been sc r ib e s for the illite r a te . S o m etim es they have been organ - iz e r s and coo rd in ators of id eas for great m en who had all kinds j of ta len ts, ex cep t for w ords. S o m etim es they have been em ployed by m en with high talen t for w ord s, but who had not tim e under the p r e ssu r e of other work for the drudgery of w riting. For them the j g h ostw riter p erform ed the drudgery, and the m a ste r of w ords j retouched the language in his own im a g e. (1956:10) J i i One im portant point this a r tic le s t r e s s e d w as that all the gh o stw riters ; who w rote in the past operated in som e ways different and in so m e ways Like other g h o stw riters. It was th erefore inaccu rate to c la s s ify i all g h o stw r ite rs as being the sa m e or perform ing the sam e jo b s, when | i I they w ere as different as the people for whom they worked. j I Jay F ran k lin 's "Inside Strategy of the Cam paign" dealt with j I H arry T rum an's 1948 cam paign and indicated how d ifferent sp e e c h w r ite rs p erform ed d ifferent functions in the many ph ases of the sp eech 'drafts. C oncerning the "w histle stop" s p e e c h e s , F ranklin declared: He [P h illeo N ash] and G eorge E lse y . . . and I worked about 18 or 20 hours a day. We did the fir s t drafts. When we had a draft ready, [C h arles] Murphy took it back to C lark C lifford. . . . When C lifford w as sa tisfie d , C h arlie R o s s , Matt C onnelly, C lif ford and Murphy usually review ed the draft and then talked it over with the P r e sid e n t and M rs. Trum an. (1948:48). T rum an's 300-odd sp e e c h e s "w ere the crea tio n of a co m p o site human I brain co m p o sed of so m e eigh t or 10 individuals . . ."(1948:48). H ow e v e r , F ra n k lin 's v e r sio n should be com p ared with T rum an's later account (White and H en d erlid er, 1954:37-41). 39 i F&ules and B ak er, in "C om m unication and the Cam paign M ana ger," spoke of the g h o stw riter, indicating that: i The m o st im portant thing for a candidate is to ach ieve a d esira b le j im age and keep it. When a ghostw riter is em p loyed , the sp eech ■ w ill be effectiv e only if it app ears to have been w ritten by the c a n - ' didate. The vocabulary and id eas m ust be com p atible with those of the candidate. (1965:34) t Edward F o llia r d 's "Ghost W riting for P re sid e n ts," in the Wash-j ington P o s t (April 9, 1972), r eiter a ted that so m e past p resid en ts have j used g h o stw r ite rs. This a r tic le recounted e x p e r ie n c e s of certa in J ! gh o stw riters and concluded by fabricating a story of how Johnson's "State of the Union" m e s sa g e w as "really" w ritten (1972: 18). j In h is a r tic le , "G ubernatorial Ghost W riters," Dwight F r e s h - j ley pointed out the varied backgrounds of g h o stw r ite rs. He illu stra ted that the p r o c e s s e s through which the gubernatorial ghost went in p re- I paring a sp eech differed as w idely as did the num ber of ghosts s u r veyed (1965:95-105). ; i In "John F . Kennedy and the 'G hosts'," J a m es L. Golden said that the follow ing kinds of qu estion s should be ask ed of the ghost - iw riter, p articu larly the Kennedy g h ostw riters: What w as the nature and function of K ennedy's staff? How did Kennedy prepare for h is extem p oran eou s a d d r e s s e s ? What p r o cedure did he follow in developing h is m an u scrip t sp e e c h e s ? What w as the relation sh ip betw een the prepared m an u scrip t and the a c- ! tual p resen ta tio n ? (1966:348) i jEven though Kennedy r elie d h eavily on sp e e ch w r ite rs for the p r e p a r a tion of se v e r a l drafts of his sp e e c h e s , Golden indicated that: 40 He was a tw en tieth -cen tu ry p o litical ora to r who, w hile fr e e ly receiv in g help from o th e rs, was the principal arch itect of his own sp e e c h e s. He took his public u tteran ces and h is audience far too se r io u sly to d elegate the full resp o n sib ility of preparation to o th e rs. Students of public ad d ress can fe e l confident that a Kennedy sp eech contains both K ennedy's id eas and his language. (1969:357) In his a r tic le , "Lyndon John son 's Speech P reparation ," R obert H all noted that Johnson had a la rg e staff of sp eech a ss is ta n ts from the f ir s t tim e he en tered p o litics in C o n g re ss. Hall said , "If the sp eech 1 i w a s not c o n sid er ed a m ajor a d d r e s s , the a ssista n ts did m o st of the I i w ork, with Johnson having the final sa y , often m aking language changes! that gave the final draft his p erson al stam p" (1965:169). Concluded H all: i It is c le a r that . . . Johnson granted speechm aking a m inor ; ro le in his total picture of p olitics: (1) he noted that you do not have to explain som ething you do not say; th e re fo re , he took few | pains to develop the techn iqu es of the accom p lish ed sp eak er. . . ; I (2) he r elie d rather h eavily on ghost w r ite r s who w ere g en era lly j m e m b e r s of his large staff to supply the in itial m anuscript; (3) f he left many of the d e c isio n s about the content and sty le of the | sp e e c h e s to G eorge R eedy . . . and (4) he divided the sp eech es into m ajor and m inor c a te g o r ie s. . . . The m inor a d d r e sse s r e c eiv ed le s s attention than the m ajor ones; the resp o n sib ility for the m inor on es w as left to his staff while the r esp o n sib ility for the m ajor a d d r e ss e s r e ste d with Johnson and the noted lea d e r s and au th orities w hose advice he sought. (1965:174) W riting on "Lincoln: R h etorical Copycat?" Thoburn B arker h yp oth esized that L incoln, through his fa m ilia rity with P e r ic le s ' iFuneral O ration of 431 B .C . , m ay have unknowingly r e c e iv e d help j fro m a "ghost. " B arker a sser ted : T here is high probability that L incoln had in vestigated what P e r ic le s had said at an o c c a sio n and under c ir c u m sta n c e s so sim ila r to his own. B arring the p o ssib ility of an unusual num ber of s tr ik - j ing c o in c id e n c e s, he w as fa m ilia r with P e r ic le s* F u n eral O ration. ; His thoughts, then, w ere not o rig in a l, for they had been put quite c le a r ly in d ifferen t w ords back in 431 B. C. (1967:30) j I t This type of argum ent is entertaining, but of c o u r se has w e a k n esse s I too obvious to req uire enum eration. i In w riting on " P o litica l P h r a se m a k er s in P e r sp e c tiv e ," R obert j 1 G underson d e sc r ib e d the origin s of gh ostw ritin g, tracing the p ractice i from the G arden of Eden onward. He c h a r a cter ize d those who use i g h o stw riters as "busy sta te sm e n preoccup ied with p o licy -m a k in g --a n d indolent p olitician s too lazy to ph rase their own thoughts" (1960:23). j G underson went on to an sw er "som e of the a p ologists [who] justify j | ghostw riting as a sp e c ia liz e d sk ill co m p letely d ivorced from policy j i m aking" by a ss e r tin g that "the job of explaining to the public is beneath! the tim e , trou b le, and dignity of the lea d er who has m ore im portant th in gs to do; so it fa lls to som e anonym ous hack or to a collab oration of s o -c a lle d r e se a r c h a ssista n ts" (1960:26). Claude F u ess* "Ghosts in the White House*' c lo s e ly p a r a lle led G u n d erso n ’s look at the ghostw riting p r a c tic es of m any la te, g reat sta tesm en . A fter a c u r so r y look at their sp eech preparation hab its, F u e s s concluded: Nothing that has been said in our country sin ce 1865 has equaled L in co ln ’s profoundly m oving secon d inaugural, d escrib ed by j C h arles F r a n c is A dam s as "being for all tim e the h is to r ic a l k e y note" of the C iv il W ar, and w ritten en tirely in h is own hand. (1958:99) 4 2 I i "The Trouble With G hosts" ( T im e . D ecem b er 5, 1949) really had little to say excep t to reiter a te Suprem e Court Ju stice Jack son 's I opinion o f gh ostw ritin g, follow ed by a sketchy and spotty look at past j ] public fig u res such as N ero , C a e sa r , H oover, and C oolidge who u sed ! i g h o stw riters (1949:25). j Don O b erd orfer's "Vast Ghostland of W ashington" d e sc rib ed the ! operation of gh osts in d ifferent a g e n c ie s of the fe d e r a l governm ent. O berdorfer concen trated on the excep tion s and obvious abu ses of i ghostw riting rather than co n sid erin g altern ative su ggestion s w hich | I would contribute co n stru ctiv ely (1964:96-98). In the L itera ry D ig est of June 9, 1934, a g h ostw riter using the | pseudonym of D iogen es com m en ted on "the slip -u p which resu lted in two a p o stle s of the New D eal m aking iden tical sp e e c h e s in the South" |and how this "throws light on the h ig h ly -o rg a n ized publicity and 'gh ost w riting' sy s te m which has sprung up in W ashington" (1934:16). The a r tic le pursued the FDR m ethod of collab orativ e sp eech preparation and concluded that knowing of this grow ing ghostw riting collab oration "helps explain why the volum e of w ords from the nation's C apitol is sw elling" (1934:16). Rufus D art c a lle d g h o stw r ite rs "The V entriloq uists of W ashing to n ," and m aintained that "so com m on and fixed by now has b ecom e jthis em p loym en t of gh osts that no o n e, in or ou tsid e o fficia l life in W ashington, g iv e s it m o re than a p a ssin g thought" (1932:268). A fter I 43 j enum erating those public o fficia ls who have em ployed gh osts, Dart then stated: While b u sin ess . . . has supposedly drawn to itse lf the better brains, governm ent, sinking in p restig e, has filled itse lf in the m ain with those whose a b ilities c o n sist in getting th em selv es elected . . . . When b u sin ess falters and m ust lean on the only m eans of c o llec tiv e action, the m achinery of governm ent, we learn with a shock how few are its stronger cogs and how many j its weak ones. So, among the sharp hints from the tim e s, may be this o n e --it may do no harm to seat in office a few m ore m en who can do their own thinking. Or, as senators are fond of saying, j the thing that happened to Rom e m ay happen again.(1932:274) j "L et's Give Up Ghost Writing," advocated E velyn Schloss in the j C hristian Scien ce Monitor of July 6, 1944, because "anonymousscribes^ have taken on m ore and m ore responsibility; they do the r esea rch , organize the m a teria l, and in many c a s e s use their own ideas in p r e paring a MS" (1944:4). The m o st dangerous asp ect of ghostwriting ;was its prevalence in W ashington, where it was taken blandly as a m a t ter of co u rse and routine. The article continued: The im plication is om inous. It has becom e too ea sy for m en of slight ability to create the r e v e r se im p ressio n . In a great coun try like the United States, where it is im p o ssib le to know all the candidates for office, it is vital that the electo ra te is aware of how an individual e x p r e ss e s h im self. (1944:4) j The a rticle concluded that "hiding the identity of the actual author p r e vents him from claim in g the recognition which is rightfully h is, and wrongly enhances the reputation of the person for whom the writing is done" (1944:4). 44 H enry A sh u rst, as a sen a to r, w as con cern ed about "Ghost i i i W riting" when he w rote in C u rren t H is to r y . A fter laying the o rig in of ghostw riting at the fe e t of the G re ek s, A sh u rst devoted a o n e -se n te n c e paragraph a c rim o n io u sly thanking H irtiu s for ghostw riting C a e sa r 's i C o m m e n ta r ie s, indicating that H irtiu s probably fu rn ish ed and excellent; pattern for future g h o stw riters (1939:39-40). ' F r e d e r ic Van de W ater's "The Ghost W riters" purported "to i tell of the jo y s and so r ro w s of lite r a r y v en trilo q u ism , or the s e c r e t of | i why so m any prom inent people have been bursting into print" ( 1929: ■ ! 327). The a r tic le cited Van de W ater's e x p e r ie n c e s gh ostw riting sp e e c h e s for variou s p e o p le --fr o m a beauty s p e c ia lis t to the su rg eo n - g en era l of the United S ta tes. He acknow ledged little e ls e than having j I "written under n u m erou s n a m es belonging properly to the fam ous" (1929:328). C laim in g to have "attributed to them turns of p h r a se s, I n iftie s, even op in ion s, they w ere unable to think up for th e m s e lv e s , " I I Van de W ater concluded: "I have done m y sh are in the great A m erica n :industry of deluding the public, but in a ll, I think 1 have been a pretty good lite r a r y ventriloqu ist" (1929:327). "The G host at the Graduation" (T im e , M arch 30, 1962) c o n cern ed id en tica l v a led icto ria n sp e e c h e s d e liv e re d at high sch ool c o m - tm encem ents around the country due to the m a il-o r d e r work of an e f f i cien t g h o stw riter. The a r tic le ram b led through h is own background, recounting how he got sta rted in the ghostw riting b u sin e ss "when he w as working h is way through the U n iv ersity of C hicago" (1962:56). Thej article concluded by quoting the ghost: "M ost high sch oo l students get h elp with th eir s p e e c h e s . Is it a sin when they pay som eon e?" (1962: 58). j The Bookm an contained an a r tic le , "Ghost W riting," devoted ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I m ainly to the lite r a r y gh osts who pen the w ords for sp o rts g r e a ts. Striving to account for the h is to r ic a l o rig in of ghostw riting, the ghost i author contented h im se lf with sayin g, " 'Ghost w ritin g' is a fa irly - ancient p r o fessio n . It is quite p o ssib le that the C om m en taries on the j G allic and C ivil W ars, which w ere sign ed by Julius C a e sa r , w ere am ong the e a rly [ex a m p les] . . . " The a r tic le concluded with the ghost author revealin g who so m e of our m o re prom inent g h o stw riters w ere (1927:185-187). "Pranks of the L itera ry 'G host,' " an a r tic le in the July 30, 1927 is s u e of The L itera ry D ig e s t, co n cern ed with how the litera ry i faculty w as suddenly develop ed in c e le b r itie s and cer ta in sp orts p e r so n a litie s , w as a h is to r ic a l recount of gh ostw ritin g in sp o r ts , b eg in n in g with John M. W h eeler's ghostw ritin g w ork for C h risty M athew son in 1911, The ju stifica tio n for sp orts gh osts w as cited this way: "E di to rs b eliev e the public lik es f ir s t-p e r s o n s to r ie s . That is the usual i an sw er g iven in support of the g h o st-w r itin g sy stem " (1927:27). j ! John S isk posited in " L iterary G hosts" that "men should be I what they se e m , and it is b eca u se so m any of us p a ssio n a te ly agree with him that the ghost w riter a r o u se s in us so m uch m ora l u n ea sin e ss and indignation" (1960:274). S isk then stated: So p erfect an e x p r e ssio n is he [the g h o stw riter] of the private and public e v a s iv e n e s s and d ish o n esty that d ism ay us daily that it m ust | often se e m that he is a phenom enon p ecu liar to th e se tim e s . The ghost w riter and h is c lo s e r e la tio n s, the lite ra r y fo rg er and the [ anonym ous and pseudonym ous w r ite r , a r e , h o w ever, in sep arab le > from the h isto ry of com m u nication . (1960:276) He then launched into the n o w -so -c o m m o n p ra ctice of attem pting to | tr a c e the h isto ry of ghostw riting in th ree paragraphs syn drom e. A fter I taking the h isto r y fro m T rach alu s, the reputed ghost for Otho, S isk j recounted the su sp ected gh osts of S h ak esp eare, ea rly b aseb all p la y e r s, and finally m od ern p olitician s who u sed g h o stw riters. Roy B enjam in and the "Ghost G oes to C ollege" dealt with the p ra ctice of so m e students to pu rch ase gh ostw ritten e s s a y s , term ipapers, etc. The a r tic le d e sc r ib e d a w eek in the life of a c o lle g e i gh ost, but fo cu sed in on ed u cators and students who disapproved of the p ra ctice (1 939:156-160). ; On F eb ru a ry 4, 1952, N ew sw eek devoted half a colum n to "Guiding the Ghost": a sw at at the ghostw riting c o u r se once o ffered by the A m erica n U n iv ersity and its in stru cto r, J. D ouglas Knox. D i s a g reein g with the C hairm an of the C om m unications D epartm ent at A m erica n U n iv e r sity , W alter B ow m an's statem en t that the gh ostw riter i today is "an in d isp en sab le artisa n . . . . It is tim e we recogn ized the I i 'fact," the a r tic le quoted E ric S evareid in refutation: 47 A m an's own wordB are a m an 's own self. . . . Im agine Mac Arthur on that returning plane, sayin g to an aide: "Fix m e up a sp eech for | C o n g r e ss, som eth in g about old so ld ie r s n ev er dying." . . . We do w ish the p r o fe s so r s would talk this whole thing o v er with W inston C hurchill. (1952:71) L ars ton D. F a rr a r d isc o v e r e d "Live G hosts in W ashington," ' l I which he rep orted w ere of two kinds: ". . . the traditional shade that ■ ! haunts c a s t le s . . . . The other kind of a ghost is the g h o st-w r ite r , i i w hose num ber is legion and about w hose e x iste n c e th ere is no doubt i whatever" (1956:109). F a r r a r then d e sc rib ed the ghosts he had m et as! | a m otley c r e w who had b ecom e d isillu sio n ed through y e a r s of having j th eir brains picked. He outlined th eir s a la r ie s , p o st-g h o stw ritin g execu tiv e p o sitio n s, and g en era l discontent. M ostly, the a r tic le dealt with recen t p r e s id e n ts --fr o m F ranklin D. R o o sev e lt onw ard (1956: \ i I 109-119). In "The R evolt of the G h o sts," Eugene Lyons apocryphally d escrib ed what would happen if all th ose doing gh ostw riting w ork w ere suddenly to revolt. He alluded to life being disjointed and the people I becom ing d e p r e ssin g ly in articu late. Only after the gh osts' revolt had | su bsid ed did the w h eels of c iv iliz e d e x isten ce begin to turn once m o re. At the end of the a r tic le , its authorship w as attributed to the E veread y E d itorial C orporation (1940:344-350). i In his colu m n , "Trade Winds" (Saturday R e v ie w , August 19, jl9 4 4 ), V incent S tarrett e x p r e ss e d alarm at the recen t in c r e a se in lit- i era r y gh osts who haunt p u b lish ers' row. The a r tic le w as an a d m issio n 48 of h orror at the ensuing p r a c tic e s (1944:18). W illiam Shannon d is c u sse d ghostw riting and the nom ination of R epublican p resid en tial candidates in I960. The a r tic le w as a parody on the p olitical usage of g h o stw r ite rs, th eir lack of m o ra l s c r u p le s, ' and the levity that can resu lt when g h ostw riter lo y a lties are diminished!. | The item purported to be a good exam ple of what ev er y gh ostw riter would like to d o --s w itc h sid e s (1959:13-14). R obert F. Ray w rote about his participation in p o litics as a | I sp ee ch w r ite r in "G hostwriting in P re sid e n tia l C am paigns." He ob- ! i ! se r v e d , with regard to the ghostw ritten sp e e c h e s of D ew ey and R o o s e velt in the 1944 p resid en tia l cam paign, that: i Insofar as the end products r eflec ted the points of view , d e sir ed I word arran gem en t, sty le , and intent of the sp e a k e r s, the 1944 candidates for the P re sid e n c y "wrote their own sp ee ch es." The sp e e c h e s did not r esu lt from a p r o c e ss involving only pen and paper in the solitude or p rivacy of their p erso n a l ch a m b ers. They w rote them with a ss is ta n c e from o th ers. To have exp ected them to do o th erw ise would be to have expected the im p o ssib le . (1956:15) j With r e sp e c t to the p rob lem s anticipated by the rh eto rica l c r itic , Ray stated: The c r itic of contem p orary p resid en tial cam paign sp ee ch es has the r esp o n sib ility to in v estig a te thoroughly the m atter of au th or ship. In addition to the e sta b lish ed canons of c r it ic is m it is in cum bent upon the c r itic that he know the c h a ra cter of th ose who a s s is t in sp eech preparation and, to the extent p o s sib le , the d e g ree of their influence in the sp eech -p rep a rin g p r o c e s s . His I judgm ent of the sp ea k ers should be tem p ered by th e se fa c to r s and ! a full understanding of the p r e s s u r e s of tim e and the m agnitude of the r e sp o n s ib ilitie s of seek in g this high o ffice which confron ts the candidates. (1956:15) 49 I R obert O liver d is c u sse d the im p lication s of ghostw riting in an article titled "Syngman Rhee: A C ase Study in T ransnational O ratory." He co n sid ered Rhee as an arch etype of a new kind of tw entieth century sp eak er. O liver said , in d efen se of the ghostw riting p ra ctice (in whichj he engaged e x te n siv ely for Rhee): ! ! P h ilo so p h ica lly , and, as som e would think, eth ica lly , the question i of gh ostw riting m e r its ca refu l co n sid era tio n . P r a c tic a lly , it may | have m uch l e s s relev a n ce. A public o fficia l m ust stand or fall by his acts and sta tem en ts - -for which he alone has full resp o n sib ility . ! How the p o lic ie s are form u lated or e x p r e ss e d are m a tters of purelyl secon d ary in te r e st. . . . (1962:125) R esponding to one c r itic who saw ghostw riting as "not m uch I m ore eth ica l than quiz show fixing . . . " (Borm ann, O ctob er, 1961: I 262), O liver d ecla red unequivocally: "1 have to d isa g re e w h o leh ea rt edly with this opinion . . . " (1962:125). He went on to indicate the |clo se working relation sh ip he enjoyed with Rhee and so m e of the other e s s e n tia l q u a lities n e c e s s a r y for effe ctiv e and productive sp eech ou t put. O liver fe lt that ghostw riting was m isu n d erstood and m is r e p r e - j sented h isto r ic a lly . "Woodrow W ilson as a Speaker," by G eorge O sborn, noted that although W ilson frequently w rote his own sp e e c h e s, that "tim e p e r m ittin g, W ilson subm itted his sp e e c h e s to oth ers to read c r itic a lly before he d e liv e re d them" (1956:68). O sborn said that Edward H ouse, David H ouston, and W ilson's wife frequently c r itic iz e d the sp eech and m ade su g g estio n s for im p rovem en t. In com m enting on the many 5° : ! changes m ade in his sp eech d rafts, W ilson stated: "I not only u se all ‘ the brains I have, but all I can borrow" (1956:68). W riting on "R eactions to John F . K ennedy's D e liv e ry Skills During the I960 Cam paign," J a m es P o w ell noted that a T im e m agazine | i a r tic le had stated that although K ennedy's sp e e c h w r ite r s worked hard at th eir cra ft, Kennedy made so m any cuts and interp olations that i advance co p ies of his text w ere a lm o st u s e le s s . P o w ell concluded that, I even though Kennedy u sed sp e e c h w r ite r s, his relia n ce on them was | ! .dictated by situation, n e c e s s ity , and dem and (1968:64). i John B eh ren s s t r e s s e d the n e c e s s ity for preparation in the field I of sp eech w ritin g in " F reelan ce Job Idea: P o litica l G hostw riting," w hich u n d ersco red five qu estion s B eh ren s fe lt w ere im portant to any ! asp iring p olitical sp eech w riter: (1) How can I get into p o litics ?; (2) What kind of cred en tia ls should I h a v e? ; ( 3) How m uch m oney can I e x p e c t? ; (4) What w ill I be exp ected to do?; and (5) What a r e so m e of k f the p rob lem s ? He indicated that th ere is no cu t-a n d -d r ie d form u la for I ghostw riting s u c c e s s (1969:49-50). Betty B ridgm an, in "A Lady P o litic a l G host Speaks Up," in d i cated what q u alities m ade an effectiv e and u sefu l p o litica l sp ee ch - w riter. The a r tic le indicated that jo u r n a lists are aw are that, c o n trary to what so m e have w ritten, preparation and q u alification w ere I n e c e s s a r y in o rd er to ghostw rite (1969:51). A sketchy treatm en t of ghosting w as provided by The L itera ry D ig e st in an a rticle ca lled " C aesar's Ghost: F ro m P haraoh to F ord , Anonym ous W riters Have Penned for the G reat," but inform ation about p olitical g h o stw r ite rs w as sligh t (1937:37-38). "Ghost Town," by P e te r L ew is, dealt with W ashington's g h o st- i I I w r ite r s , the m ain revelation being that the ghostw riting p r o c e ss d if fe r e d a lm o st as m uch as did the p olitician s. The a r tic le pointed out i that gh ostw ritin g, like any other p r o fe ssio n , can be "bastardized" by | the am oral ghost who | i . . . is the fellow who ta ilo r s a sp eech to his own sp e c ific a tio n s, ! s o m e tim e s for a clien t he w ill never m ee t. He c r e a te s the c lien t's j s ty le , d oes the c lie n t’s thinking. And when the great m an c le a r s his throat to begin he m ay be seein g h is tex t for the fir s t tim e. ' (1960:39) | jThe m ajor portion of the a r tic le , h ow ever, w as devoted to ghostw riting i a n e c d o te s. S en eca Johnson w rote "In D efen se of G hostw riting" at a tim e | when the p ra ctice w as still little known and m uch abused by the public. He contended that "except in its indisputably fraudulent p h a se s, ghost w riting is so c ia lly u sefu l and has earn ed the status of resp ecta b ility " (1939:536). He a d d ressed h im se lf to the e th ics and nature of g h o st w riting to c o r r e c t the m uch publicized m isun derstand in g about g h o st- ,w riting. He looked to such com p lain ts as: people who u se the s e r v ic e s of g h o stw r ite rs are " b rain less im p o ste rs" , the function of the G h o stw riters' B ureau, p resid en ts of the United States who u se d g h o stw riters and why, and p rob lem s surrounding ghostw riting. P ro b - { ably Johnson o v e r sim p lifie d the solution of eth ica l qu estion s when he i I concluded: I I can se e no problem in national lea d er s . . . u sin g ghost w r ite r s. | A fter a ll, the sp ea k er m ak es their w ords his own and is th erefore fo r e v e r resp o n sib le for them . It is a lot better that they should be cra ftsm a n lik e w ords than p olitical illite r a c y . (1939:543) "When Johnson P lan s a S p e e c h /1 according to the F eb ru ary 3, 1964 is s u e of U .S . N ew s & c World R eport, the "words th e m s e lv e s , to F date, have often tended to be those of H orace Busby . . . a Texan who { I has w orked for m any y e a r s and knows what Mr. Johnson wants" (1964: i 33), The a r tic le elu cid ated B u sby's ghostw riting p r o c e s s and how he saw h is role in John son 's sp eech preparation p r o c e s s . In com m enting on whether he spoke for the P r e sid e n t as a sp e e c h w r ite r , Busby said: i 1 " S p eech w riters get the fa cts and fig u r e s, they prepare the rough d ra fts, but in the end it is the P re sid e n t h im se lf who d e c id es what he w ill say and how he w ill say it" (1964:33). j Donald K. Sm ith responded to B orm ann's com p lain ts about the eth ics of "G hostwritten S p eech es. " Sm ith fe lt that Borm ann w as wrong in his effort to e sta b lish a kind of g e n e ra liz ed eth ica l indictm ent of ghostw riting r e g a r d le s s of the context within which the "ghost" does his work, or the m otivation s w hich o c c a sio n the work. Sm ith e x pounded his con cern for the high in tegrity which should surround the I i |ghostw riting p r a c tic e, refuting B orm ann's statem en t that the u se fu l- i i i. _ „ _________ _________________________________ n e s s of g h o stw r ite rs, even by P r e sid e n ts , would be ended u n less an I elem en t of deception w as introduced into the action (1961:416). Sm ith ; i further argued concerning the n e c e s s ity for gh ostw riting when he i stated: "1 think it is p o ssib le to o b ser v e that the speaking p r a c tic es of j s u c c e s s iv e p resid en ts are substantial evid en ce that n e c e s s ity e x is ts fo r th ese p r a c tic e s, and that this n e c e s s ity has nothing to do with the attraction of deception" (1961:419). Sm ith cogently argued that g h o st w riting m ust be evaluated in a broad so c ia l context: j M ost of our efforts in sp eech education a re d irected at provid- ! ing students with the sk ill, the co u ra g e, and the in tellectu al r e so u r c e s to enable them to attain . . . s e lf-s u ffic ie n c y . But sp eech j itse lf is a so c ia l phenom enon before it is an individual p o s se ss io n . It belongs to a culture as m uch as to a m an. It m a n ifests its e lf as a behavior linked not only to the action of a p erso n , but also linked j to the so c ia l context within which the p erson a c ts. We are unw ise . . . to ignore or trea t lightly the im portance of context in sh ap - ‘ ing the m ultitude of fo r m s within which speaking o rig in a tes and takes place. We would be w ise . . . in attacking the problem of ghostw riting . . . to se e k to exam in e the variety of contexts within which such p ra ctice o c c u r s, to ap p raise ex istin g p ra ctice against the full range of purpose and n e c e s s ity which it r e fle c ts, and to pinpoint our eth ical judgm ent. (1961:419-420) "The S p eech -w ritin g Team in a State P o litica l Cam paign," was exam ined by Donald Sm ith, w h erein he sought to d e sc r ib e so m e of the a sp ec ts of the organ ization , a c tiv itie s, a ssu m p tio n s, and p rob lem s of a sp eech -w ritin g tea m . The paper reitera ted the folly of relyin g on h isto ry to shape o n e's opinions regarding what the p ractice of g h o st w riting has been or id eally should be (1966:16-19). In "O bservations on R o o se v e lt's L itera ry Style," Josep h 54 Schiffm an acknow ledged that R o o sev e lt enjoyed the help of m any ta l- ! ented people in his sp eech preparation. He posed a challenging q u e s tion for rh eto rica l c r itic s when he a s s e r te d that the FDR pattern and style tran scen ded his num erous gh ostw riters: ". . . though th ese m en j [F D R 's g h o stw r ite rs] cam e and went as their own affairs dem anded, R o o se v e lt's w ritings follow a definite pattern. They bear the c le a r i im print of one m an, R o o sev e lt h im self" ( 1949:224). f "R hetoric and the Cam paign of 1956" w as a sy m p o siu m c o v e r - < age of p resid en tia l candidates (E isenh ow er by H. F. Harding, S teven - : son by R obert L>asch, Nixon by B arnet B a sk e r v ille , K efauver by Doug-j i las E hninger). The cov era g e of the con trastin g p ra ctices of E is e n - j i how er and Steven son in th eir u sa g es of ghostw riter a ss is ta n c e m ight ; [ I se r v e as a caveat against c a te g o r ic a lly c la ssify in g all ghostw riting as being the sa m e (1957:29-54). Edith M. Stern spoke of ghostw riting as "The C ash -a n d -n o - C redit B u sin e ss" and stated: Many of the pious p roclam ation s a gain st the use of gh osts com e from people who would rather do a hard d ay’s work than w rite a letter, yet who firm ly b eliev e that "anyone can w rite if he puts h is m ind to it." The m ore you r e a liz e that ghosting . . . is to w riting . . . as ex p ert accounting is to the m ultiplication tab le, the m o re you ap p reciate the so c ia l utility of the astrapenm an. (1949:11-12) jPatently, Stern felt that g h o sts, or the use of g h o stw r ite rs, did not I n e c e s s a r ily indicate a p e r so n 's inability to organ ize thought but rather ju s t that one m ay have neither the tim e nor the sp e c ia l talent to o r g a n ize words su ccin ctly . The literatu re review ed in this sectio n w as confined to non r e se a r c h m a te r ia ls from both sch o la rly and popular so u r c e s . In s u m m a r y , the m ajor points c o v e r e d w ere as follow s: 1. T here w as a sp e c ia l con cern for the eth ics of ghostw riting. 2. There w as a tendency on the part of so m e w r ite r s to c a te g o rize all ghostw riting as being the sam e: "ghostw riting is ghostw riting." 3. Other w r ite r s pointed out that the gh ostw riting p ractice v a r ie s with the nature of th eir a ssig n m en t and the person for whom they are working. T reatm en t of G hostw riting in P ast R e se a r c h on P r e sid e n tia l Speaking D isser ta tio n s Which D evoted L im ited C ognizance to G hostw riting In h er d isse r ta tio n on the nom inating sp e e c h e s at both p o litica l conventions in I960, Sarah Sanderson acknow ledged the influence of g h o stw r ite r s, but a ssig n ed the problem to future r e s e a r c h e r s . She said: "The an sw er m ight r e s t in a change of p e r sp e ctiv e on the part of a c r itic who would have to exchange the a n a ly sis of the ethos of the individual to an in vestigation of the ethos of a group . . . " (1965:125). E a rn est Brandenburg c o n sid er ed R o o se v e lt's sp ee ch p rep a ra - } t ’ tion in his d isse r ta tio n , "An A n a ly sis and C r itic ism of F ran klin D. 56 R o o se v e lt's S p eech es on International A ffairs D e liv ered B etw een Sep- | I tem b er 3, 1939 and D ecem b er 7, 1941," and m ade the statem en t that: W idely varying opinions are held as to w hether or not Mr. R o o s e v e lt w rote h is own sp e e c h e s. A ccu sa tion s w ere com m on that he was content sim p ly to let others prepare the a d d r e ss e s he d e liv ered . . . . On the other hand, unequivocal statem en ts have been ! frequently m ade that R o o sev e lt did w rite his own sp e e c h e s. (1948: 214) 1 He went on to m ake the point that: Which of th e se view s one accep ts depends upon h is particu lar d e fi nition of the word "w rite," for the g en era l proced ure of preparing R o o se v e lt's sp e e c h e s has been explain ed by both the late P r e sid e n t j h im se lf and by se v e r a l of h is a d v ise r s who w orked with him at j variou s tim e s . (1949:214) i While R o o sev e lt did enjoy the lib era l com panionship of se v e r a l speech-! i 1 w r ite r s during his te r m s in the White H ou se, their participation in the j preparation of his sp e e c h e s presen ted little problem to Brandenburg as a rh eto rica l c r itic . He concluded: In the preparation of h is sp e e c h e s . . . R o o sev e lt relied on a nu m ber of his a d v is e r s . . . both for m a te r ia ls and for su g g ested ways of e x p r e ss in g id eas. V arious p erso n s voluntarily forw ard ed ideas to the P re sid e n t for con sid eration in h is a d d r e s s e s , and he f r e quently req u ested sp ec ific inform ation. R o o sev e lt decided the final p h raseo log y. The ultim ate product of the com bined efforts invariab ly yield ed a d d r e ss e s indentifiable [s i c ] as p ecu liarly "R ooseveltian . " (1949:220) B ern ard K is se l sought to analyze not only N ixon's sp e e c h e s, but his sp ee ch training and ex p erien ce in his d isse r ta tio n , "A R h eto r i cal Study of S e lec ted S p eech es D e liv ered by V ic e -P r e s id e n t R ichard M. Nixon During the Convention and P r e sid e n tia l C am paign of 1956." K is s e l fe lt that: 57 R ichard Nixon p erson ally prepared his p resen tation s for the c o n - J vention and cam paign of 1956 based on data he secu red from h is staff and the R epublican N ational C om m ittee. Nixon u su ally d e liv e re d hiB p resen ta tio n s extem p oran eou sly. (1959:65) While the study did m ention collab oration with r e sp e c t to gathering of m a te r ia ls , no m en tion w as m ade of the infusion of sp e e c h w r ite r s in thei I Nixon sp ee ch preparation p r o c e s s . R obert M. Hall conducted "A R h eto rical A n a ly sis of S elected S p eech es of Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, 1955-1961," and noted co n - j i cern in g ghostw riting that: ! He [Johnson] had a staff that ranged in siz e from twenty to eighty people. F r o m this group of a ss is ta n ts he se le c te d the people who would help him in preparing a sp eech . If the sp eech w as not c o n sid ered a m ajor a d d r e ss, the a s s is ta n ts did m o st of the work, with \ Johnson having the fin al sa y , often m aking language changes that gave the final draft h is p erson al stam p. (1963:169) I H all further noted that: ■ A s with m any public fig u r e s, Johnson so m e tim e s sought help from so u r c e s other than h is staff. He adm itted: "I r e c e iv e help and e d ito ria l a ss is ta n c e both from m y staff and from people of m y acquaintance who are sk illed in this field ." The proced ure depended on the c ir c u m sta n c e s surrounding the p u rp ose, o c c a sio n , and s i g n ifican ce of the sp eech . (1963:170) In concluding, he rem ark ed that when Johnson b ecam e P resid en t: The r esp o n sib ility fo r the preparation of h is sp e e c h e s . . . shifted from unknown em p lo y ee s to w ell-k now n govern m ent and national le a d e r s. . . . P r e sid e n t Johnson . . . depended on such noted g o v ern m en t m en as Theodore Soren son , Dean A ch eso n , M cG eorge Bundy, and oth ers to w r ite his sp e e c h e s. (1963:225) Jack G ravlee m ade "A R h etorical Study of Franklin Delano jR oosevelt's 1920 Campaign" to evaluate the invention, organization, sty le , and d eliv ery of sev en m ajor cam paign sp e e c h e s. In his only j m ention of gh ostw ritin g, G ravlee stated: j ! The candidate a sse m b le d an able se c r e ta r ia t to a s s is t him on his ! three tours. . . . The accom panying staff a lso included a sec* ! retary, a sten ograp h er, and a tran sp ortation m an ager. T h ese m en , along with other in term itten t a s s is ta n ts , aided the n om in ee in gathering m a ter ia l and in w riting the sp e e c h e s. C h arles M. M cC arthy, who m anaged the New York City h ead q u arters, offered additional data and ad vice. (1963:57) N ich olas M. C ripe (1953) did "A C r itic a l A n a ly sis and C om pari* son of S elected 1932 P r e sid e n tia l C am paign S p eech es of H erbert C lark H oover and F ranklin Delano R o o sev e lt." C oncerning th eir u se of I g h o s tw r ite r s , C ripe observed : I . . . R o o se v e lt's sp e e c h e s w ere no m ore "ghostw ritten" in j the tech n ica l s e n s e of the w ord than w ere H o o v er 's. While H oover, j perhaps b ecau se of the in ten sity of his b e lie fs , m anaged to do the b est speaking of his c a r e e r , R o o se v e lt's su p erio r d eliv ery and ! sty le , plus h is ability to e sta b lish a sym p athetic relation sh ip with h is a u d ien ces, c o m p lete ly oversh ad ow ed H oover's lim ited ability a s a public sp eak er. (1953:78) In "The Cam paign Speaking of H arry S. Trum an in the 1948 P r e sid e n tia l E lectio n , " B ill Stacy focu sed on the P r e sid e n t's o b je c tiv e s and str a te g ie s and sought to exp lica te h is m ean s of im plem enting the m edium of p erson a l public a d d r e ss. In d isc u ssin g h is so u rce of p rim a ry data, Stacy noted; i The p rim ary data exam in ed in this study w ere the file s of the P r e s ident and so m e of his 1948 a s s is ta n ts . The c o lle c tio n of f ile s at the H arry S. Trum an L ib rary in Independence, M isso u r i, m ak es it a veritab le haven for Trum an r e s e a r c h e r s . P e r so n a l in terv iew s with the P re sid e n t and so m e of h is m ajor cam paign c o -o r d in a to rs and sp eech w r ite r s o ffered in sigh ts that sim p ly w ere not d is c o v e r able in print. (1968:67) G ail C om pton, in "Franklin Delano R oosevelt: An Annotated Bibliography o£ His Speaking" (1966), attem pted to provide a guide to . the vast amount of d iv e r se litera tu re u sefu l in studying R o o sev e lt's speaking. This study annotated o v er two thousand books, a r tic le s , j d is se r ta tio n s, m onograph s, and m a n u scrip ts relevan t to any study of | i i R o o se v e lt's speaking. It is a u sefu l guide in r esea rch in g the m any R o o se v e lt sp eech w r ite r s. S u m m arizin g the P h .D . d isse r ta tio n s review ed in this se ctio n , : one m ay say the following: 1. Som e r e s e a r c h e r s have apparently critiq ued p resid en tial ' a d d r e ss e s with the naive assu m p tion that the p resid en ts j had done all th eir speaking and w riting without any a s s i s t - j ance from o th ers. j 2 . Som e of th e se r h e to r ica l c r it ic s have acknow ledged that to so m e unknown extent d ifferent p resid en ts have u tilized s p e e c h w r ite r s, but th e se acknow ledgm ents in no c a se w ere supported by an in-depth study of the p re sid e n ts' g h o st w riting p r a c tic e s. S p eech -R ela ted Studies on P r e sid e n ts Which Make No M ention of G h ostw riters In his d isser ta tio n , "John F . Kennedy: H is Speaking in the W iscon sin and W est V irgin ia P r im a r ie s I960," Vito S ilv e s tr i stated: "The obvious im portance of the two p r im a r ie s prom pted Kennedy to id eliver stum p sp e e c h e s . . . . H is [K ennedy’s] speaking in tr in sica lly related to h is str a teg y , [therefore] this study contains a d escrip tion and a n a ly sis of the Kennedy strategy and speechm aking" (1966:67). Jennings Randolph w rote "Trum an as a Winning Speaker" (1948)j but failed to m ention the fact that he had sign ifican t help with his j speaking from sp e e c h w r ite r s --e v e n when he spoke extem p oran eou sly. i Trum an's s u c c e s s in the 1948 e lectio n should rightfully be attributed in, part to h is s u c c e s s as a sp eak er. H ow ever, to overlook the con trib u - ; | tions of m en such as C h arles R o s s , John C arter, C h arles Murphy, G eorge E ls e y , Matt C onnelly, and C lark C lifford s e e m s stran ge. J a m es G. P o w ell pursued "An A n alytical and C om parative j i Study of the P e r su a sio n of Kennedy and Nixon in the I960 Campaign" | i (1963), to evaluate e le m en ts of lo g ica l, em otion al, and eth ical fo rm s : of proof in addition to the r esp ec tiv e candid ate's m ethod of d e liv e ry , | portrayal of eth o s, m ethods of c r itic is m , and additions or d eletion s from prepared tex ts. B e ca u se th ese variou s a rea s of a n a ly ses bear jheavily on the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s , so m e attention should have been given to the part that sp ee ch w r ite rs played in the debates. P aul R osen thal studied the TV debates of I960 in "Ethos in the P r e sid e n tia l C am paign of I960: A Study of the B a sic P e r su a siv e P r o c e s s of the K ennedy-N ixon T elev isio n D ebates." He had two pu rp oses for his investigation: "(1) to d evelop a m ethodology for the a n a ly sis of p e r su a siv e com m u n ication s in their natural con text, and (2) to apply | the m ethod to con tem p orary public a d d re ss . . . " (1963:15). No in vestig atio n or a n a ly sis of gh ostw riting w as included. J e ro m e P o lisk y studied "The K ennedy-N ixon D ebates: A Study in P o litic a l P er su a sio n ." His purpose w as to a s s e s s the e ffe c tiv e n e ss ; of the rh etorical c h o ice s m ade by Kennedy and Nixon in the four radio - i te le v isio n d ebates. H ere, as with other p resid en tia l stu d ies, the lack of co n sid era tio n properly due the sp e e c h w r ite r s' influence se e m e d lacking, yet P o lisk y stated that he: . . . analyzed and app raised rh eto rica l c h o ic e s m ade by Kennedy and Nixon in building th eir im a g e s, in identifying th eir relation sh ip to the p o litical p a r tie s, and in developing th eir p o s i tions on is s u e s of foreign and d o m estic p olicy. (1965:75) | i "The E lem en ts of P e r su a sio n in the N ationally B road cast j i S p eech es of E isen h ow er and Steven son During the 1956 P r e sid e n tia l j i j i Cam paign" w as evaluated by Hubert Knepprath (1962). He sought his j a n a ly sis through a s e r ie s of questions and subquestions such as: What. | su b jects did the sp ea k ers talk about? What m o tiv e s did they appeal j | to ? In what verb a l fo r m s did they p resen t th eir su bject m atter and f I f I ap p ea ls? The data w ere taken str ic tly from texts of each of the sp e e c h e s which w ere prepared from tape record in gs and stenographic tra n scrip tio n s of the d eliv ered sp e e c h e s. A pparently, no attem pt was m ade to se c u r e in terv iew s with staff m e m b e r s who m ay have p a r tic i pated in the drafting of any of th e se sp e e c h e s. M alcolm S illa r s conducted "An A n a ly sis of Invention in the i 1952 P r e sid e n tia l Cam paign A d d r e sse s of Dwight D. E isen h o w er and I I lAdlai E. S teven son ," and exam in ed s e v e r a l of the can d id ates' sp e e c h e s i L ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 62 i to evalu ate their invention. This involved, accord in g to S illa r s, "the ; exam ination of the background, audience, i s s u e s , organization, sp eech com p ositio n and the d evelop m en t of the three fo r m s of proof . . . " \ i (1965:17). The only m ention m ade of g h o stw riters was that Stevenson j I ch o se as his a ssista n ts r e se a r c h m en and c o lleg e p r o fe s s o r s , and | E isen h ow er ch o se s u c c e s sfu l w r ite rs from leading m a g a zin es. How ! and what th ese m en contributed, p articu larly to sp eech com p osition , was not included. Otto Bauer pursued "A Study of the P o litic a l Debate B etw een Dwight D. E isen h ow er and A dlai E. Stevenson in the P r e sid e n tia l Cam paign of 1956" (1959), seek in g to teB tth e w id e ly -p u b lic ize d c h a r g e ; that the candidates did not debate. The study lim ited its data to sp e e c h e s , newB c o n fe r e n c e s, and w ritten statem en ts by the n o m in ees, j E ise n h o w er 's dependence on sp ee ch w r ite rs w as w idely known, yet i B auer said nothing about the m atter. ; ! "The Speechm aking of H arry S. Truman" w as analyzed by Edward Rogge (1958) to show Trum an's developm ent a s a sp eak er and of his u se of public speaking to win office and to fu lfill the r e s p o n s i b ilitie s o f the o ffic e s which he won. The study did not c o n sid er the influence of sp ee ch w r ite rs such as Matt C onnelly, C lark C lifford, and C h arles R o ss. I In I960, R ogge wrote an a r tic le on the Trum an "M iracle of i t *48," but again failed to m ention the role of sp e e c h w r ite r s in the sp eech preparation p r o c e s s . Rogge devoted con sid era b le space to j l Trum an's "new-found" ab ilities as an extem p oran eou s sp eak er, but se e m e d preoccup ied with the d e liv e r y factor. i 3 B en H ope's "The R hetoric of D efen se: A Study of the T actics I and T echniques of Refutation in P r e sid e n t F ranklin D. R o o se v e lt's S p eech es for R e-E lectio n " (I960), sought to a n sw er the question: How. did P r e sid e n t R o o sev e lt deal with or "refute" opposition ch a rg es in hiB th ree r e -e le c tio n c a m p a ig n s? The study w as lim ited to an e x a m i- ' I nation of sp ee ch tex ts. No attem pt w as m ade to d isco v e r who helped ! i in the p r o c e s s of drafting and re-d raftin g s p e e c h e s . C ertainly the J R o o se v e lt "brain trust" w as w idely enough known that its influence in ta ctics and techn iqu es should have been exam in ed . i John W ilson attem pted "An A n a ly sis of the C r itic ism of S e - I ? I lected S p eech es by F ranklin D. R oosevelt" to " su g gest m ethods which] ! 'might be em p loyed by students to evaluate w ritten sp eech c r itic is m , j and to rev ea l c r itic a l trend s in a seg m en t of published, con tem p orary w ritin gs on speechm aking" (1955:15), If any study should have c o n s id e r e d , in a m ajor w ay, the influence of sp e e c h w r ite r s , this was the one b ecau se it dealt only with w ritten m an u scrip ts and their w ritten c r itic is m . In "The Building of the 'Four F r e e d o m s' Speech," Laura ]C row ell exam in ed F ran k lin D. R o o se v e lt's sp ee ch preparation. She 4 I I reported that: J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 64 ' Study of th e se drafts [of the sp eech ] d oes not r ev e a l the work done by R o o se v e lt's staff in checking the e x a c tn e ss of the data and the 1 stra teg ic d e sir a b ility of the in fe re n c es; h o w ev er, it does r ev e a l the nature and prodigious amount of ca refu l thought given to provid ing the text by which R o o sev e lt would m ake the ch o sen id ea s known to C o n g ress and the nation. (1955:282) Dayton M cKean w rote "Notes on W oodrow W ilson 's S p eech es," but co m p letely n eg lected any p o ssib ility that g h o stw riters m ay have ' had a hand in the sp eech preparation p r o c e s s . Instead, he sim p ly I stated: ! M r. W ilson . . . did not have a un iform m ethod of preparing his j sp e e c h e s . Som e he w rote out on h is typ ew riter from shorthand 1 n o tes. F or o th e r s, he m ade shorthand n o te s, dictated the sp eech , j and then c o r r e c te d the sten o g ra p h er's copy in ink. (1930:176) I McKean tan talized h is rea d er s when he declared: "It happens that he | [W ilson] u sed for his own w riting a H am m ond typ ew riter with p ecu lia r i sm a ll type, and hence we are able to tell with certain ty the sp eech es that he w rote out h im self" (1930:176) (presum ab ly as opposed to those ! which w ere w ritten for him by o th ers). "The R hetoric of C alvin C oolidge" w as pursued by Arthur F le s e r (1962) m ainly to p o sit inform ation about a fo rm e r P re sid e n tia l ,sp eak er about whom little is known. C oolidge iB reputed by se v e r a l w r ite r s (F o llia rd , F u e ss) to have u sed g h o stw r ite rs e x te n siv ely . This fact w as apparently unknown or d isreg a rd ed by F le s e r . Vernon Rank looked at "M artin Van B u ren's P o litic a l Speak ing in H is R ise to P o litic a l P ow er" (1961) , and sought to determ ine i with what e ffe ct, during tim e s of p o litica l c r i s i s , Van B uren m ay have lused public speaking as a d elib erate tactic to further his p olitical a im s. ! Nine sp e e c h e s from the period 1814-1828 w ere studied. There was no : i m en tion of g h o stw r ite rs. j The Ph. D. d isse r ta tio n s review ed in this se c tio n , w hile co n cen tratin g on so m e a sp ec ts of p resid en tia l sp eak ing, for unknown r e a so n s overlook ed the role sp e e c h w r ite r s played in p resid en tia l a d d r e s s e s . P r e sid e n ts Whose Speechm aking j bias Not B een R e se a r c h e d No sc h o la r ly stu d ies of the sp eech m aking p o lic ie s of the fo l- I low ing p resid en ts w ere found: I T hom as J e ffe rso n Z achary T aylor i John T yler M illard F illm o r e J a m es R. Polk W illiam M. Taft F ranklin P ie r c e R ichard Nixon and Speechw riting No d isser ta tio n w as found focu sin g on R ichard N ixon's p o licie s and p r a c tic e s regarding his w riting and r e se a r c h staff. F r o m tim e to tim e , books and a r tic le s in popular m a g a zin es, n e w sp a p er s, and journals d is c u ss N ixon's u se of sp e e c h w r ite r s. Som e bf th ese r a ise the p e r siste n t r e s e a r c h e r 's problem of deciding betw een what belongs in the rev iew of litera tu re and what co n stitu tes data which ^hould be treated in la ter ch a p ters. In the p resen t study, the policy w as adopted that all published m a te r ia l dealing d irectly (and often 66 e x c lu siv e ly ) with R ichard N ixon's sp eech w ritin g p r a c tic e s should be I placed in the data category and r e se r v e d for use at relevan t tim e s in la te r ch ap ters. T hese m a te r ia ls include the follow ing: j "A P r e sid e n tia l Ghost Story." N ew sw eek , January 11, 1971, pp. 21 - 22 . A lsop , Stew art. "Nixon on Nixon." Saturday E vening P o s t , July 12, 1958, pp. 2 6 -2 8 , 54, 58, 60, 62, 66, 70, 72. A n d rew s, P h illip . This Man N ixon. Philadelphia: W inston, 1952. ' B a sk e r v ille , B arnet. "The New Nixon." Q uarterly Journal of I Speech (F eb ru ary, 1957), 3 8 -4 3 . B onafede, Dom. " R ep ort/S p eech w riters P lay S trategic Role in C onveying, Shaping N ixon's P o lic ie s ." N ational Journal (F eb - ruary 19, 1972), pp. 3 1 1-31 9. j | B eatty, J e ro m e. "Trade W inds." Saturday R e v ie w , Sep tem b er 14,, p. 21. ! C o ste llo , W illiam . The F a c ts About N ixon. New York: Viking ( P r e s s , i9 6 0 . ' 1 De Toledano, Ralph. One Man Alone: R ichard N ixon. New York: j Funk and W agnalls, 1969. 1 1 D ru ry, A llen , C ourage and H esitation: The Nixon A d m in istration. G arden City: Doubleday and Co. , 1971. E v a n s, Rowland, and Novak, R obert D. Nixon in the White H ouse: The F ru stra tio n of P o w e r . New York: Random H ouse, 1971. Honan, W illiam B. "The Men Behind N ixon's S p eech es." New Yorh T im es M ag a zin e, January 19, 1969, pp. 2 0 -2 1 , 63, 6 5 -6 7 , 73, 75. H uebner, L ee W. "The D eb ater, the S p eech w riter and the C h al lenge of Public P er su a sio n ." Journal of the A m erica n F o r e n sic A sso c ia tio n (W inter, 1970), pp. 1-14. Keogh, J a m e s. This Is N ixon. New York: Putnam , 1956. M cG innis, Joe. The S ellin g of the P r e sid e n t. New York: T rident P r e s s , 1969. I i "Nixon at the Brink O ver Viet Nam ." T im e , May 22, 1972, pp. j 11-14. "Nixon v. the V ultures." T im e, A pril 17, 1972, p. 99. O sborne, John. The Nixon W atch. New York: L iverigh t, 1970. 1 Padrow , Ben, and R ich ard s, B ru ce. "Richard Nixon . . . His Speech P reparation ." T oday's Speech (N ovem b er, 1959), pp. 11-12. f i P ett, Sam uel. " P rofile of a P resid en t." Salt Lake T rib un e, Janu- ; ary 14, 1973, pp. A 15-16. i P o ls b y , N elson W. The C itize n 's Choice: Hum phrey or N ixon. ; Washington: Public A ffa irs P r e s s , 1968. ! Sem ple, R obert B. "Speechm aker Nixon: The Men Behind Those W ords." New York T im es M agazin e, May 11, 1969, p. 23. Spalding, H enry D. The Nixon Nobody K now s. New York: J. David and Co. , 1972. "The V ice P resid en cy : R ichard Nixon, B rid g eb u ild er." T im e , January 18, 1954, pp. 2 5 -2 9 . W halen, R ichard. Catch the F a llin g F la g . Boston: Houghton M iff lin, 1972. The Nixon Vacuum . New York: Houghton M ifflin, 1972. W ills, G arry. Nixon A g o n istes. Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1970. W ise, Sidney, and S ch ier, R ichard F. The P r e sid e n tia l O ffic e . New York: C row ell, 1968. W itcover, J u le s. The R e su rr ec tio n of R ichard N ixon. New York: P utnam , 1970. W oods, R ose M ary. "Nixon's My B o ss." Saturday Evening P o s t , j D ecem b er 28, 1957, pp. 20, 77-78. "W ord-G am e Plan." T im e , A p ril 24, 1972, p. 15. | In e a r lie r drafts of this chapter, an attem pt w as made to group the a r tic le s and books under a se t of captions. H ow ever, no se t of | I c a te g o r ie s was found to be w orkable. A m ajor difficulty was that most: of the books and a r tic le s d is c u s s e d not ju st one a sp ec t of ghostw riting ! l but se v e r a l. Som e of the c a te g o r ie s given a tria l w ere as follow s: , i The Nature of G hostw riting j I I The H istory of G hostw riting j I P r o c e d u r e s U sed by G hostw riters Scope of the P r a c tic e i B en efits of the P r a c tic e j D angers and A b uses i E ffects of G hostw riting on the Task of R h etorical C r itic ism I The im p ra ctica lity of such c a te g o r ie s did not b ecom e apparent until | i se v e r a l se ts of them w ere applied to the literatu re being review ed . The r e s e a r c h e r had X eroxed a ll of the a r tic le s review ed; he then m ade notes on each item on index ca rd s and, when applying a s e t of c a te g o r ie s, he sought to put th e se ca rd s into the appropriate sta c k s. This proced u re soon led to m ajor d ifficu lties. F o r ex a m p le, a given influ ential sc h o la r ly a r tic le would d is c u ss four or fiv e of the above c a te - j g o r ie s. T h erefo re, the r e se a r c h e r found that no m atter what se t of ! captions w ere u sed , the a r tic le had to be taken apart and portions of it j cited under each of se v e r a l headings. T his resu lted in a vast amount of rep etitiou s c ita tio n s, and also se e m e d to d estroy the m ajor thrust of m any of the books or a r tic le s cited. A dditionally, a s e t of captions I se e m e d to require the r e se a r c h e r to p resen t argum en ts p rem atu rely. > j I i When the r e se a r c h e r put all of the ca rd s of notes into a sin gle i p ile, he concluded that the status of the litera tu re could best be co n - , veyed to a read er in the form of a m o sa ic . The m ost notable of c h a r - ; a c te r is tic s w ere that both the sch o la rly and the popular trea tm en ts of ! ghostw riting rep resen ted little l e s s than a state of c o n fu sio n --th e term l 1 i i gh ostw riting w as u sed by d ifferent w r ite r s to m ean d ifferen t things. None of the ite m s w ere rep orts of sy ste m a tic r e se a r c h and only a few I j w ere based upon first-h a n d data other than th ose o c c a sio n a l a r tic le s that m ight be c a lled " m em oirs of a ghostw riter" ; the bulk of the lite r a - I I ture was valuable ch iefly in that it provided a c r o s s - s e c t io n of p e r - | son al opinions; and the g ist of m any a r tic le s did not s e e m to d e se rv e m ore than a sen ten ce or two of su m m ary. The m o st im portant c o n clu sio n drawn from the o v e ra ll g e sta lt of the litera tu re w as that s y s tem atic r e se a r c h is so r e ly needed. CHAPTER III I I BACKGROUND, CONTEXT, AND BRIEF HISTORY j i OF PRESIDENTIAL GHOSTWRITING ! I I The focus of this d isser ta tio n is upon the sp eech w ritin g ("ghost4 i writing") in the Nixon A d m in istration. Som e of the im portant fea tu res | of N ixon's p r a c tic e s , h ow ever, cannot be c le a r ly understood u n less j they are com p ared or con trasted with the p r a c tic e s of p reviou s p r e s i- j dents. T hese co m p a riso n s or c o n tra sts do not req u ire an in-depth | study of each of N ixon's th irty-tw o p r e d e c e s s o r s , although they do req u ire a su rvey of so m e of the first-h a n d data that have been r e - i ported by p reviou s o b s e r v e r s . Of p articu lar value are the data I regarding the five m o st recen t of his p r e d e c e s s o r s . This m ean s that the in c r e a s e s of p resid en tia l r e sp o n sib ilitie s gradually b ecam e so num erous and tim e-co n su m in g that F ranklin D. R o o se v e lt p u blicized w idely the n e c e s s ity of m aintaining an openly acknow ledged w riting staff. This fact also explain s why ghostw riting fro m G eorge W ashing ton through H erbert H oover is b riefly co n sid ered in the f ir s t part of th is chapter and sp eech w ritin g from F ranklin R o o se v e lt through Lyn- don B. Johnson is co n sid ered in som ew h at g r e a te r detail in the secon d i {main portion of the chapter. 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 71 P re sid e n tia l G hostwriting: W ashington Through j H erb ert H oover j When G eorge W ashington rode to New Y ork's F ed er a l H all in ! 1790 to read the fir s t State of the Union M essa g e to a joint s e s s io n of * C o n g r e ss, he s e t a preced en t that few , if any, p resid en ts have failed to fo llo w --h e used a gh o stw riter. In fa ct, he u sed se v e r a l of them . T hree of his s e c r e ta r ie s se r v e d as g h o stw riters: Jonathon Trum bull, Jr. , David H um phreys, and David Cobb (B rigan ce, 1956:10). B rig ance rem arked: | W ashington's V ictory D ispatch on the su rren d er of C orn w allis --s e e m in g ly like C a e sa r 's for A s ia -- w a s ghostw ritten: by David ! H um phreys. H um phreys w rote the dispatch and W ashington signed it without change. Then in the F a ll of 1783, after the B r itish had evacu ated New York, W ashington w as c a lled upon to attend five c e r e m o n ie s of w elco m e in that c ity , half a dozen m o re on the m a rch a c r o s s N ew J e r s e y , and still another eight after he a rriv ed i in P hiladelphia. At each h is position req uired him to say a few fitting w ords of r esp o n se. What w as a m an like W ashington to do, with h is awkward style and unready pen? He turned to David H um p h rey s, who by this tim e understood the m ind of his co m m a n d er- in -c h ie f so w ell that he could w rite a sp eech that fitted the C o m m an d er's lip s. H um phreys w rote th e se r e sp o n se s so each was a bit d ifferen t from the o th e r s, and gave each a p erson al touch that m ade each audience fe e l that W ashington w as talking s p e c i fic a lly to them . (1956:10) B rigan ce then m ade this side note: In the m id st of this s e r ie s of delightful little s p e e c h e s , c o m e s one that ja rs the e y e s of a read er even today. That w as W ashing to n ’s F a r e w e ll O rder to the A r m ie s of the United S tates. It had a heavy introduction, su perfluous statem en ts within, and a feeb le exhortation. Why? David H um phreys w as ill, and W ashington had to c a ll on another g h o stw riter, David Cobb. Unhappily, i David Cobb w as not equal to it. (1956:10) 72 Other g h o stw riters w ere em p loyed by W ashington. The m o st outstanding w ere J a m es M adison and A lexander H am ilton, who aided in the drafting of W ashington's " F arew ell A d d ress" (F a r r a r , 1956: i 1 1 2-113 )--th e one that is read e v er y F eb ru ary 22nd in a com bined s e s s io n of the United States C o n g r e ss. There are so m e who cla im that T hom as J e ffe rso n a lso had a hand in drafting this sp eech ( F a r r a r s l 1956:113). H ockett, in com m enting on the " F a rew ell A d d ress," ob- j served: "The deeper p roblem rem ain s w hether the ad d ress em b od ies ! i W ashington's id ea s and view s e x p r e ss e d in the language of another" (1955:24). A lexander H am ilton's biograph er, R ichard B. M o r r is, j cla im ed that H am ilton "drafted m any of W ashington's state p ap ers, ! I I sp e e c h e s to C o n g r e ss, and p roclam ation s" (1957:6-7). Going on, M o rris added: "In so m e c a s e s they w ere a v eh icle for H am ilton's ! ideas; in o th ers they w ere a lite ra r y rep hrasing of W ashington's own I Ithoughts" (1957:7). A fter M adison and H am ilton prepared f ir s t drafts ; of the " F a rew ell A d d ress," W ashington m ade a draft of h is own and then H am ilton again rew rote the en tire sp ee ch , contributing what M o rris d e sc r ib e s as " m asterly rephrasing" (1957:7). J e ffe r so n , the two A d a m se s, M adison, and M onroe, a ll highly lite r a te , evidently p r eferred th eir own m ethods of w riting to th ose of g h o sts. H ow ever, F u e s s com m en ted that: I Once as a boy in c en tra l N ew York, during a high school c o u rse in elocu tion , 1 had to m e m o r iz e and r ec ite a p a ssa g e by i the patriot John A d am s, beginning, "Sink or sw im , liv e or d ie, 73 su rv iv e or p e r ish , I gave m y hand and m y heart to this vote." j It w as supposed to have been spoken ex corde in July, 1776, at j a m eetin g of the Continental C o n g ress in P h ilad elp h ia, in reply to a m em b er who had advocated caution. As a m atter of record , | the rem ark s attributed to A dam s w ere w ritten by D aniel W ebster ' q and d eliv ered by him on August 2, 1826, a s part of h is " D iscou rse in C om m em oration of the L ives and S e r v ic e s of John Adam s and Thom as J efferso n ." A d am s' sp eech w as fanciful, for there was no extant rep ort of the argum ent advanced by him on that o cca sio n . C om m enting on its sp e c tr a l o rigin , W ebster c o n fe sse d to M illard F illm o r e , "I w ill tell you what is not g e n e ra lly known. I w rote that sp ee ch one m orning before b reak fast, in m y lib ra r y , and when it w as finish ed m y paper was wet with m y tea r s." (1958:46) j H ockett b eliev ed that John Quincy A d am s' relation to the M on- | I i roe D octrin e w as highly su sp ect with r e sp e c t to authorship (1955:25). i A ndrew Jack son apparently r e lie d heavily on som eon e e ls e to j w rite his fam ous "P roclam ation A gainst N u llification." E xactly who j J w rote it is su bject to se r io u s question. F a r r a r (1956:113) cla im ed it I was J a m es M adison, while H ockett contended that "the words . . . are* j ■ those of Edward L ivin gston , the S e c re ta r y of State" (1955:2 5). Clapper co n cu rred with this la st opinion and wrote: When A ndrew Jack son decid ed to is s u e h is n u llification p r o c la m a tion, he c a lle d in his S ecreta ry of State, Edward L ivin gston , who w rote the proclam ation; but in this in stan ce both the principal and the ghost sign ed th eir n a m es to the docum ent. (1939:68) Jack son appeared to rely heavily on A m os Kendall of Kentucky to w rite m o st of his state papers: K endall, w hose a c tiv itie s and m ov em en ts w ere ep h em era l in the e x tr e m e , seld o m w as se e n in the White H ou se, or even in W ashington, but he was often there n e v e r th e le s s. Many bigw igs | who knew h is duties would look for him so m e tim e s for w eeks without finding him . He would be in J a ck so n 's study, picking the 74 P re sid e n t's brain and com p osin g so m e of the c le a r e s t and m o st readable state docum ents e v er turned out for p olitica l p u rp oses. (F a rr a r, 1956:113) In com m enting on Jack son 's p roced u res with his g h o stw r ite rs, B riga n ce wrote: I Jackson would lie on his bed, sm oking v ig o ro u sly , and talking out his id ea s in "vigorous but im p r e c is e language." Kendall would j draft a paragraph and read it back. Jack son would shake his head, and try talking it out again. Kendall would draft it again, getting c lo s e r and c lo s e r until Jack son would relax sa tisfie d , whereupon "Kendall h im se lf would be su rp rise d at the full force of the point." (1956:11) I Jack son a lso had gh o stw riters other than K endall, M adison, and ! I Livingston: ^ | H is veto of the Bank C harter w as drafted by a team who worked! on it for three days while Jack son p a ssed in and out of the room , listen in g to d ifferent p arts, and d irectin g what w as to be in serted | and altered . M em b ers of this team w ere K endall, A ndrew J. D on elson , R oger B. T aney, and L evi Woodbury. Though the i o th ers cam e and went, A m os K endall rem ain ed , until Henry A. j W ise whined to the House in 1838: "He w as the P r e sid e n t's think- j ing m ach in e, and his w riting m ach in e, ay, and his lying m achine." i (B rigan ce, 1956:11) 1 G underson d e c la r ed that Jackson surrounded h im se lf with such d is tinguished gh o stw riters aB Duff G reen , A m os K endall, M artin Van B uren, F r a n c is P . B la ir , Edward L ivin gston , R oger B. Taney, G eorge B ancroft, Andrew Jack son D on elson (his nephew ), and W ashington Irving: Van B uren a s s is te d with the M a y sv ille Road veto and the fam ous to a st to "Our F e d e r a l Union"; Taney, K endall, and D onel- | son helped prepare the veto of the Bank B ill in 1832, a docum ent w hich N ich olas Biddle denounced a s "a m an ifesto of anarchy." The N u llification P ro cla m a tio n w as w ritten by S e c re ta r y of State Edward L ivingston, but both L ivingston and Jackson sign ed it - - su ggestin g the principle that if a ghost sign s his nam e to a d ocu m ent, h e 's no longer a ghost. (1960:23) In 1841, D aniel W ebster, ju st appointed S e c r e ta r y of State by W illiam Henry H arrison , drafted what he hoped m ight be H arrison 's inaugural a d d re ss. But the P re sid e n t, aging though not se n ile , had brought with h im to W ashington his own m e s sa g e and, accord in g to F u e ss: . . . at fir s t declined any help. When finally he was induced to con su lt W ebster, the latter urged him to elim in ate som e of the num erous r e fe r e n c e s to G reek and Roman h e r o e s. One evening M rs. Seaton, W eb ster's h o s te s s , inquired w hether anything had happened during the day. "You would think som ething had h ap pened, " the "godlike Dan'l" rep lied , "if you knew what 1 have done. 1 have k illed sev en teen Rom an p rocon su ls as dead as sm e lts , e v er y one of them ." (1958:46) Ja m es Buchanan turned to a fo rm e r United States A ttorney G en eral, J e re m ia h S. B lack , for sp eech w ritin g help. In fact, it would appear that Black did m uch of the ghostw riting work for Buchanan (B rig a n ce, 1956:11). He drafted Buchanan's January 8, 1861 " M es sage to C o n g r e s s ," the o rig in a l of which in B lack 's handw riting, is now in the L ibrary of C o n g re ss. B lack also wrote the contents of Buchanan's "Reply to the C o m m issio n e r s of South C arolina" on s e c e s sion. The origin al copy, a lso in B lack 's hand, is am ong the Buchanan papers in the H isto r ic a l Society of P en n sylvan ia. B rigan ce stated: Buchanan prided h im se lf on his high lite ra r y ab ility in w riting | state p ap ers. Yet repeatedly he turned to B lack to gh ostw rite | state papers and even le tte r s. An ex trem e is when he had B lack ! draft a le tte r from Buchanan to B lack , in which Buchanan asked I B lack for h is opinion as A ttorney G eneral. The origin al of this Letter is now am ong the Buchanan papers in P hiladelphia. It is in 1 B lack 's hand, with a notation on the back in Buchanan's hand, s a y ing that this was "The form in which Judge B lack d e sir ed 1 m ight j propound the q u estion s to him for his opinion. " (1936:11) j Som e c o n tro v e rsy surrounds "Honest Abe" and h is use of ghost-i w r ite r s . F a r r a r a lleg ed that: i One A m erican P re sid e n t who did h is own w ritin g, beyond p er- adventure, w as Abraham Lincoln. H is genius at governing was su rp a ssed only by h is ability to e x p r e ss in sim p le and m oving w ords the hopes and p rayers of m illio n s of A m e rica n s. No g h o s t w r ite r e v er lived who could tug at the h e a r tstrin g s m ore effectiv ely ! than "Honest Abe." (1956:113) ; N ich ols con cu rred with that sentim ent: "Except for highly lite ra te j P r e sid e n ts like L incoln, Theodore R o o sev e lt, and Woodrow W ilson, j \ m any of our P r e sid e n ts have had som e kind of a ss is ta n c e . . . " (1967: i 38). H ow ever, she soon added that: . . even L incoln m ay be said ;to have had so m e a ss is ta n c e from Sew ard in c lo sin g h is F ir s t Inaugu ral" (1967:38). B rigan ce too noted that: A fter drafting his F ir s t Inaugural, L incoln had it privately printed in Springfield. He then show ed or m a iled c o p ies to tru sted a d v iso r s. Am ong th ese w ere Judge David D avis, Senator O. H. Brow ning, F ra n cic P. B la ir, W illiam H. Sew ard, and p o s sib ly Stephen A. D ouglas. A ltogeth er L incoln m ade fo rty -fo u r changes from the fir s t printed draft, tw en ty-eigh t of them on the recom m en d ation s of o th e rs. (1956:11) With r e sp e c t to the co n clu sio n of the F ir s t Inaugural, B rigan ce pointed out: P robably the m o st thorough-going [change] w as the con clu sion beginning w ith, "I am loath to c lo s e . " L in co ln 's o r ig in a l c o n c lu sion , Sew ard thought, w as cold and l if e le s s , so Sew ard drafted I another. L incoln took S ew ard 's co n clu sio n , kept the thought and 77 i I a r r a n g e m e n t e x a ctly as S ew ard had d rafted it, but r ew r o te it in j h is own p o etic langu age. The thought in that c o n c lu sio n is S e w a r d 's. The w ord s a re L in c o ln 's. (1956:11) I Fueris a s s e r t e d that a fter L in coln had the sp e e c h printed, he c a r r ie d it with h im to W ashington. O ver it he had to ile d u n u su - j ally hard , m od ifyin g its language fr o m m orn in g to m orn in g. When i he rea ch ed the c a p ito l, he su b m itted it to W illiam H. Sew ard and O rv ille H. B row n in g, both of whom m ad e helpfu l su g g e s tio n s. The noble c lo s in g paragrap h r e fe r r in g to the " m y stic c h o r d s of m em o r y " w as c o n c e iv e d o r ig in a lly by S ew ard but im p ro v ed by L incoln . (1958:47) Thoburn B a r k e r , in "Lincoln: R h e to r ic a l C o p y c a t?, " stated that the G ettysb u rg A d d r e ss c o n ta in s m any of the w o r d s, if not the id e a s of ' i P e r ic le s ' F u n e r a l O ration: I I A fter co m p a rin g th em [the w ords of the O ration] with th o se | of L in co ln , one m igh t tend to d is c r e d it the c la im that the a d d r e ss at G etty sb u rg " r ep r e se n te d the o r ig in a l thoughts of L in coln , i thoughts that w ere prod u cts of h is own deep r e fle c tio n s o v e r a [ life tim e and during th r ee y e a r s of te r r ib le w ar." . . . T h ere is i high p ro b ab ility that L in coln had in v e stig a ted what P e r ic le s had ! sa id at an o c c a s io n and under c ir c u m s ta n c e s so s im ila r to h is own. B a r r in g the p o s s ib ility of an unusual num ber of strik in g c o in c id e n c e s , he w as fa m ilia r with P e r ic l e s ' F u n er a l O ration. j H is th ou gh ts, then, w e re not o r ig in a l, fo r they had been put quite c le a r ly in d iffe r e n t w o rd s back in 431 B. C. (1967:30) F u e s s fu rth er o b ser v ed : A lthough the G etty sb u rg a d d r e ss is co m m o n ly a s s u m e d to have been e n tir e ly L in c o ln 's so m e m y s te r y is co n n ected w ith it. He ev id en tly c o m p o se d it rath er h a stily in W ashington, w h ere he read it to W ard H. L am on , w ith the c o m m e n t that he w as not at all s a tis fie d and w as afra id it would not c o m e up to popular e x p e c tation. On the even in g b e fo r e , L in coln took the sh e e ts of paper and w ent n ex t door in G etty sb u rg for a h a lf h o u r's c o n fe r e n c e with S ew ard. What took p la c e during th eir m ee tin g n eith er m an e v e r r e v e a le d . . . . (1958:47) The author o£ Andrew Johnson’s presidential rem arks has long j plagued h istorian s, Hockett com m ented: "There is good reason for attributing som e of them to G eorge Bancroft, so far as the literary form is concerned. Whether they faithfully reflect Johnson's view s is ' of much m ore fundamental im portance" (1955:25), Johnson did not i even learn to read or w rite until after he was tw enty-one, and when it i I cam e tim e for him to d eliver his fir s t M essage to C on gress, he called { Bancroft, the fam ous historian to w rite it. The original draft of that j speech is in the m anuscript division of the Library of C ongress in ! I B ancroft's own handwriting, with only a few unimportant additions and I refer e n c es added in the alm ost illegib le scra w l of Johnson h im self | (F arrar, 1956:113). Accom panying the origin al Bancroft draft is a letter of appreciation from Johnson to Bancroft, thanking the latter for i h is help in drafting the speech. Concerning who drafted Johnson’s R econstruction B ill, Brigance pointed out that: . . . when Johnson vetoed the R econstruction B ill, he turned to a form er United States Attorney G eneral, Jerem iah S. Black. Black wrote the m e ssa g e for Johnson; and B lack's draft, in B lack's handwriting is now among the Johnson papers in the Library of C on gress. Attached to it is B lack 's covering letter. (1956:11) C om m enting on the speaking of p residents from Johnson to M cK inley, F u e ss stated: i . . . the state papers of P resid en ts from Johnson to M cKinley ! are for the m o st part dull and d reary. They have a lm o st no indi- j vidual quality. . . . A few sk illed ghost w riters could at lea st j have supplied to th ese undistinguished presidential papers a little w arm th, c o lo r , and human appeal. (1958:47) In d isce rn in g who ghosted J a m es G arfield 's s p e e c h e s , F u e s s noted: G arfield , confronted with the n e c e s s ity of com p o sin g a letter accep tin g the R epublican nom in ation , w rote B la in e, 1 'P lea se w rite m e your su g g estio n s on any phase of it. . . . " The resu ltin g reply w as apparently a c o m p o site , including se c tio n s by W illiam E varts and C arl S chu rz, as w ell as B lain e. A s M arch 4 drew n ea r, G arfield b ravely undertook to read the inaugural a d d r e ss e s of his p r e d e c e s s o r s , reaching the not un justified c o n clu sio n that "those of the past, ex cep t L in c o ln 's, are d rea ry reading." Worn out by th is s e lf-im p o s e d dru d gery, he felt what he d e sc r ib e d as "an unusual repugnance to w riting" and in stru cted h is p olitical agent, T. M. N ichol, to prep are an outline. Soon, h o w ev er, ■ G a rfield 's c o n sc ie n c e b ecam e so active that he sta rted to r ec a st what N ichol had produced. To a frien d he c o n fe s se d , "I w rote j the la st sen ten ce at h a lf-p a st two o 'c lo c k a .m . , M arch 4." j (1958:47) j G rover C levelan d , w hose u ttera n ces in public or private w ere j i known to be far l e s s than sp righ tly, relied to a c o n sid er a b le extent on i i , i h is s e c r e ta r y , D aniel S. Lamont: In h is inaugural a d d r e ss he u sed no m a n u sc r ip t--a n e x tr a ordinary p r o c ed u r e, w hich led Ingalls to d e sc r ib e him as a "m ag n ificen t g a m b ler. " When the P r e sid e n t went on a vacation trip to the A d iron d ack s, he took along n eith er c le r k nor s e c r e ta r y and co m p o sed w hatever le tte r s w ere n e c e s s a r y in longhand. (F u e s s , 1958:47) "There w as little," accord in g to W illiam B ehl, "in the ea rly training of Theodore R o o se v e lt that contributed d ir ec tly to h is ability as a speaker" (1945:112). G ilm an stated: He did not show any p articu lar in te r e s t in public speaking and | debate as an undergraduate at H arvard C o lleg e or a s a law s t u dent at C olum bia U n iv e r sity . H is e x p e r ie n c e s in speaking w ere lim ited to a few fo rm a l d ebates and d is c u s s io n s before clu b s to which he belonged at H arvard C ollege. (1923:27,39) While he was not known to have em ployed fu ll-tim e ghost- w r ite r s . R oosevelt was n ev erth eless not adverse to consulting fr e - ! quently with others concerning his public pronouncem ents (F u e ss, 1958:47). Behl com m ented that "during his presid en tial y e a r s, R o o se velt consulted others rather freely about the content of his speech es" <1945:116). Indeed, he subm itted the draft of his F ir s t M essage to C on gress not only to Elihu Root, but also to Mark Hanna (F u e ss, j 1958:47). A ccording to the R oosevelt House L ette rs, while preparing ! his F ir s t M essage to C o n g ress, he com m ented to Mark Hanna: "If you can com e down h ere in the course of a w eek or two I should like to go over certa in parts of my m e ssa g e with you, notably what 1 say about tr u sts , labor, and the tariff" (Abbott, N ovem ber 8, 1901). To W hite- ilaw Reid, R o o sev elt wrote: "1 send you the subdivision of my m e ssa g e Ion tariff and recip rocity. P ray return it with any com m ents you desire to make" (N ovem ber 8, 1901). And to J. G. Cannon R o osevelt said: "I should like to go over som e parts of my m e ssa g e with you; also i certa in Illin ois m atters" (Novem ber 16, 1901). In addition, R oosevelt lallowed Henry Cabot Lodge to check his 1905 Inaugural A d d ress for so le c is m s and in fe licities (F u e ss, 1958:47). Many tim e s , these ;speech a ssista n ts would advise him to refrain from overstatin g. "Cut out 'most* and 'high' in the fir s t sentence to avoid exaggeration," cau - I jtioned R eid (July 14, 1904) concerning R o o sev elt's A cceptance Speech in 1904. In a cam paign sp ee ch in 1918, W illiam Howard Taft su g g ested that R o o sev e lt soften his "very strong statem en ts as to a lack of p rep - I aration for th ree y e a r s before we got into the war" (M arch 11, 1918). ! Even on those sp e e c h e s d eliv ered on his frequent tours around the j country, R o o se v e lt sought a s s is ta n c e . B efore his extended tour in 1 1903* he w rote to Senator H enry Cabot Lodge: "I would like to read to ; you a couple of my sp e e c h e s in which 1 sh all touch on the tr u sts and ta r iff. Can you co m e in Thursday evening at nine?" (M arch 19, 1903).[ i C on cern ing sp e e c h e s R o o sev e lt m ade in B r a z il, A rgen tin a, and p C hile, he subm itted drafts fir s t to the o fficia l W ashington r e p r e se n ta tiv es of those co u n tries for their co m m en ts before leaving in O ctober 1913 (T h ayer, 1919:329). He follow ed a s im ila r p ractice in a d d r e sse s j d eliv ered in E gypt, F r a n c e , G erm any, N orw ay, and England during 1910 (Stoddard, June 25, 1941). R eg is P o st noted: "The extent of h is con su ltation with o th ers w as e n tire ly dependent on how in terested he w as in h is su bject and the extent of h is know ledge of it" (A pril 2, 1941), Behl su m m a rize d his findings on R o o se v e lt's sp ee ch preparation this way: It is c le a r that R o o se v e lt w as ca refu l in the preparation of m o st of h is s p e e c h e s . He follow ed a fa irly definite plan of m aking a b rief ou tlin e, dictating to the sten og rap h er, m aking c o r r e c tio n s in w ritin g, sending the final draft of his sp e e c h e s to oth ers for c r it ic is m , including m any id eas and thoughts of o th e r s, and m a k ing c o r r e c tio n s , often with the advice of oth ers; but e s s e n tia lly the sp e e c h e s w ere unm istakably his own. (1945:119) 82 Some w riters (N ich ols, 1967; F a rr a r, 1956) b elieve that i I i Woodrow W ilson wrote all of his sp eech es. O thers d isa g ree. Robert j T. O liver suggested that W ilson's era: . . . revealed still another cardinal r esp ect in which the history ! of A m erican oratory was in W ilson's tim e approaching a new | phase: the tim e was near when the P re sid e n t (and other political ! lead ers as well) no longer could m anage the m ultifarious duties | that w ere intensified as governm ent extended its sway into m ore and m ore asp ects of private life, and still have tim e for the prepa ration of their own sp ee ch es. The new age of the g h ost-w riter was com ing in. The speaker henceforth w as to be le s s the o r ig i nator and the arch itect of p o licies and m ore their exp ositor and ; defender. Skill in sp eech would be no le s s im portant in the new ; day; but it would be sk ill of a som ew hat different kind. (1966:515) ' E rn est May m ade the point that an investigation of W ilson's i I i sp eech w riters ought to begin with the N eutrality in Thought P ro c la m a - | k tion of August 18, 1914: i i [An] exploration of the State D epartm ent arch ives . . . turned up the original draft of this proclam ation in the handwriting of ; R obert Lansing, with changes and notations by S ecretary of State W illiam Jennings Bryan. All the words and ph rases of the p r o c lam ation, save one sentence relating to A m e rica 's d e sir e to m e diate the war, w ere w ritten by Lansing and Bryan. (1953:461) W ilson often spoke extem poraneously from only an outline as he b e cam e in creasin gly busy as p resident. This type of speaking w orried many of his intim ate a d v iso rs (Osborn, 1956:68), particularly Edward House (Seym our, 1926-8:125) and the S ecretary of A gricu ltu re, David Houston (1926:174-176). Tim e perm itting, W ilson subm itted his .sp eech es to others for c r itic a l reading before d eliv ery . Frequently he ;asked his w ife, E llen, to liste n c ritic a lly . A fter her death in August, 83 1914, W ilson cam e to depend m ore and m ore upon his se cr eta r y , i Joseph P. Tumulty, as his speech critic (T arbell, 1916:65). W ilson i attested frequently that he often made changes in som e of his sp eech es i before delivering them . On one o cca sio n , he said , "I never stop doc- ! i to ring things of that kind until the day I have to d eliv er them . . . . I not i J only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow" (W ilson, 1914:1). No president sin ce Woodrow W ilson haB attem pted to prepare j I h is sp eech es without consid erable a ssista n c e (Thonnsen and Baird, 1970:332). R ichard L. Strout declared: ; Today sp eech es prepared in part by other hands are taken for i granted. With the com plexity of m odern affairs one man cannot i hope to be fam ilia r with ev ery detail of every subject. (I960: j E ditorial Section) | I In an article titled "When Johson P lans a Speech," U. S. News and j World R eport stated that "A m odern P resid en t . . . would have little j tim e for anything e ls e if he aspired to be his own sp eech and statem ent w riter" (February 3, 1964:33). W arren G. Harding found the req uirem en ts of cam paigning for president in 1920 such that he ca lled upon the ghostw riting s e r v ic e s of a risin g young new spaper ed itor, Arthur H. Vandenberg. Once asked if he coined H arding's ph rase, "back to norm alcy," Vandenberg r e plied, "1 don't claim it and I don't deny it. N orm alcy certain ly sounds like one of my words" (B rigan ce, 1956:12). Edward T. F olliard was i a lso concerned about who w rote H arding's Inaugural A ddress: L _ _ ______________ _____________________________________ _____________________ 8 4 ] . . . W arren G. Harding em p loyed Col. G eorge H arvey to w rite h is Inaugural A d d r e ss, an oration en rich ed by the phrase "found ing fathers" and debased by the ugly word "norm alcy." The fact that Harding u sed a g h ostw riter w as not shouted from the White j H ouse roof. . . . (1972:18) i i j Judson C- W elliv er, fo r m e r e d ito ria l w r ite r for the Washingtonj T im e s , did a g rea t deal of gh ostw ritin g during the 1920s. B rigan ce 1 I spoke of W elliver a s "a v e r s a tile w r ite r [who] . . . co m p o sed speeche^ I in an ornate style for H arding, and in a frugal sty le for Coolidge" (1956:12). W e lliv er 's biography in Who's Who in A m e r ic a show s that ! j he w as attached to the White H ouse organ ization after M arch 4 , 1921, < and occu p ied a confidential relation to P r e sid e n ts H arding and Coolidgej I \ until N ovem ber 1, 1925. j i i C lapper com m en ted on W e lliv er , saying: Harding and C oolidge had the sa m e ghost w r ite r fo r a tim e. He w as Judson C. W elliver, once a W ashington corresp on d en t and h ired by Harding to w rite s p e e c h e s . W elliver studied the flo rid Harding sty le and im itated it p e r fe ctly . When H arding died, W elliver continued for C oolidge in the sa m e cap a city , sw itching to a m o r e abrupt sty le . He took delight in e d ito ria ls which c o m m en ted on the c o n tra st in lite r a r y sty le betw een H arding's p on d er ous sp e e c h e s and th ose of the tigh t-lip p ed C oolid ge, he having w ritten both. (1939:68) C alvin C oolidge u sed g h o stw r ite rs including G eorge H arvey, who also w rote for Harding. F o llia r d indicated that: . . . H arvey w as the $75, 0 0 0 -a -y e a r chief e d ito ria l w riter of The W ashington P o st. C olonel H arvey . . . actu ally m oved into the White H ouse in 1924, an e le c tio n y e a r , taking along h is ty p e w riter and a c a se of Scotch. H ere he w rote sp e e c h e s for C oolidge and at the sa m e tim e w rote e d ito r ia ls for The P o s t . He provided one of the slo g a n s of the 1924 cam p aign , "C oolidge or C haos," which w as the head on one of his fu ll-p a g e e d ito r ia ls . (1972:18) 85 i F u e ss noted, concerning C oolidge's sp eech preparation, that: . . . he once rashly agreed to dedicate A eolian Hall in B oston, [but] he realized that he knew nothing about m u sic and prom ptly en listed the co-op eration of a m em b er of the Boston Symphony O rchestra. But Mr. Coolidge was honest, and when a collection of his sp eech es was about to be edited, he told Frank W. Stearn s, "That Aeolian H all talk is pretty good, but it isn 't m ine. Keep it out." (1958:98) H erbert H oover's ghostw riter was F rench Strother. Outlook reported that: Mr. Strother's task [is] to a ssem b le the facts for and write the P re sid e n t's sp ee ch es and m e s s a g e s and ex tracu rricu lar a c tiv itie s. . . . The gen eral public is not aw are [of th is], but it is known to the editors and w r ite rs with whom Mr. Strother a ss o c ia te s . (January 29, 1930) In conjunction with Outlook's com m ent, Johnson mentioned: A listen er who had never heard of ghost writing m ust have been su rp rised and puzzled at the sp eech es of fo rm er P resid en t H oover in the 1936 cam paign. H ere was a man who eight y e a rs e a r lie r I could, and did, speak with a straight face of prohibition . . . and in 1936 was "wowing 'em" with gags about as good as the average radio c om ed ian 's. A year later Mr. H oover w as unhappily wading through sp eech es which he apparently had not had tim e to read before he stood to d eliver them before a m icrophone. The cause of the uninitiated lis te n e r 's bew ilderm ent was sim p le enough to new spaper m en, who had known for y ea rs that Mr. H oover p r a c tica lly never w rote a speech of his own. (1939:538) H oover said he "never d elivered a ghost written speech" (F u e s s , 1958: 98). F rom his view point, this was an honest statem ent. B rigan ce, how ever, provided an in terestin g com m entary to this rem ark of H oover's by stating: ! He refused to use m a teria l as Strother wrote it, but . . . would 1 in sert "freakish phraseology and con stru ction s." He would sp lit Strother's in fin itives. Strother would change them back, and H oover would rein sert them . . . . F in ally, in May, 1931, Strother ] left the White H ouse, but when the 1932 cam paign approached ! Hoover called him back again. W hatever w ere the s e c r e t ter m s { that Strother exacted , the resu lts w ere obvious. At once H oover stopped using sp lit infinitives and began using m ore litera ry lan guage. Strother died in 1933, but H oover, as late as August 10, 1954, on his 80th birthday, was still using som e of those literary j p h rases taken verbatim from his 1932 cam paign sp eech es. (1956:12) P resid en tia l Speechwriting: Franklin R o o sev elt to 1968 In 1940, the occupation of ghostw riter was rep resen ted for the ; i fir s t tim e on the cen su s taker's reports (Stern, 1940:11). It was a lso | during this period in presid en tial h istory that the term "ghostw riter" j i i began to be replaced in com m on usage by the term "speechw riter." 1 I This was probably because Franklin D. R o osevelt openly acknowledged! and even boasted of his "brain trust," whose duties included helping with the preparation of p resid en tial a d d r e sse s, p roclam ations, and i Other docum ents. Among R o o sev elt's "brain trust" of sp eech w riters (N ich ols, 1967:38) w ere m en such as Lowell M ellett, Sam uel E. R osen m an, H arry Hopkins, Robert Sherwood, Louis H owe, C harles iM ichelson, Benjam in Cohen, Thomas C ocoran, Raymond M oley, and Hugh Johnson (F a r r a r , 1956:113). N ichols (1967:38-39) added to this lis t Adolph B erle and Archibald M acL eish , while Thonnsen and Baird (1970:332) liste d Stanley High; and U .S . News 8t World R eport (F eb ruary 3, 1964) record ed R exford Tugwell and W illiam C. Bullitt. The i i b e st known of the R oosev elt sp eech w riters w as C harles ("Charlie the 87 ! Mike") M ich elson , who w as the publicity d ir ec to r for the D em ocratic | i N ational C om m ittee until h is death. He a lso w rote a b est s e lle r about his sp eech w ritin g e x p e r ie n c e s (M ich elson , 1944). C arter d escrib ed the preparation of R o o se v e lt's sp e e c h e s by I saying: j He prep ared a sp eech as though he w ere c o rr ec tin g the a r c h i- j te c t's blueprints for a cottage at Hyde P ark. The task of a s s e m b ling the m a ter ia l and putting it into draft form w as farm ed out to su b ord in ates. . . . T h e n F .D .R . would take it under a d visem en t and r e tir e to his study w ith a stenograph er and, u su ally, one of ( his confidan ts, lik e Judge R osen m an or H arry H opkins, to put it into his own language. (1960:25) 1 R obert Ray pointed out that: . . . at this point in the preparation of P r e sid e n t R o o se v e lt's s p e e c h e s , he would do one of the follow ing: red ictate it; c r itic iz e it in m a rg in a l notations; o r am end it by striking out and su b s ti tuting se c tio n s. (1956:15) G oldm an (1962:14) se e m e d to a g r ee with C arter and R ay's i j a n a ly sis of R o o se v e lt's sp ee ch preparation and added that a m ajor I I R o o se v e lt sp eech took from three to tw elve days to p rep are. R o o s e v elt cu sto m a r ily began by dictating so m e of the m ain points he wanted to m a k e, after which the sp e e c h w r ite r s --u s u a lly from two to fo u r -- i would r e tir e to the C abinet R oom to initiate fir s t drafts. T h ese d r a ft s - -s o m e t im e s only p a r a g r a p h s--w o u ld be given to P r e sid e n tia l s e c r e ta r y G race Tully for typing, after w hich so m e of the drafts w ere handed to R o o se v e lt for approval. The P r e sid e n t would approve c e r - i jtain paragrap h s, "tickled pink" as he liked to sa y , or he m ight rem ark 88 j ' j "no, no, no" and hand it back for redoing. "Take a Law," he would I laughingly dictate to T ully, and he would draft a v e rsio n to cla rify to the w r ite r s m o re p r e c is e ly what he had in mind. | A s the sp eech reached final fo rm , Goldman (1962:14, 16) indi- j i c a ted that R o o sev e lt would read it aloud for tim ing and e ffe ct, seek in g ■ la st-m in u te c o m m en ts from his ch ief w r ite r s --u s u a lly Sherwood and R osen m an. F in a lly cam e the c lim a x of the R o o sev e lt contribution, j ; i With F .D .R . before the m icrop h on es tran sform in g the m an u scrip t | : I totally into his own by his m anner and d elivery. F o r m uch of R o o se v e lt's la ter c a r e e r , Sam uel R osenm an was the ch ief sp ee ch w r ite r. In the opening chapter of his book, Working with R o o sev e lt (1952), R osenm an d escrib ed in detail how he, Sherw ood, ^nd H arry Hopkins p repared the draft of one of R o o se v e lt's " firesid e jchats." they would go over each sen ten ce word by word, attem pting to analyze how the audience would react. R osen m an em p h a sized the fact that although R o o sev e lt u sed sp ee ch w r ite rs e x te n siv e ly , the P re sid e n t alw ays had the final say with the final draft (1952:99). Ray agreed with the R osen m an a sse ssm e n t: Insofar as the end products r eflec ted the points of view , d e sir e d word arran gem en t, sty le , and intent of the sp ea k er s (R o o sev elt and D ew ey), the 1944 candidates for the p resid en cy "wrote their own sp e e c h e s." The sp e e c h e s did not r esu lt from a p r o c e s s in volving only pen and paper in the solitude or p rivacy of th eir p e r son al c h a m b ers. They w rote them with a s s is ta n c e from o th e rs. | To have e x p e cted them to do oth erw ise would be to have exp ected i the im p o ss ib le . (1956:15) 8 9 Raym ond M oley added: He and I argued e n d le ssly o v er what the substance of a sp eech [ should be. But once he reached a d e c isio n , I've n ev er slipp ed anything over on him . . . . R em em b er, when you get to work on s p e e c h e s , that you're a c le r k , not a sta tesm a n . (1939:343) R o o se v e lt's "brain trust" cam e up with so m e of h is m o st e ffe c - l I tive phrasing. F o r ex a m p le, the phrase "rendezvous with destiny" in j i the 1936 sp eech accepting the renom ination was su g g ested by T h om as ! Coco ran (F u e s s , 1958:99). The r efer e n c e to the " h orse-an d -b u ggy . age" w as borrow ed from G eorge H o lm e s, through h is b r o th e r -in -la w , j Stephen E a rly , an advance m an in the R o o sev elt cam p aign s. Stanley High contributed "econom ic r o y a lists," u sed at the P hilad elp hia C on vention of 1936, H arold Ickes cla im ed the authorship of the "quaran tine cla u se" in the sp eech of O ctober 5, 1937. Judge R osenm an r e c o u n ts how the rhythm ic sequ en ce of "M artin, B arton, and F ish" [occurred a lm o st sim u ltan eou sly to him and Sherwood. The P re sid e n t, when they chanted it, "grinned from ear to ear" (R osen m an, 1952:29). R osen m an com m en ted frequently on the n e c e ss ity for p r e s i dential sp e e c h w r ite r s. On one su ch o c ca sio n he said , "Why, it takes four o r five days to turn out an im portant sp eech . With the p r e s s u r e s of h is o ffice , a P r e sid e n t couldn't p o ssib le take that m uch tim e just to put h is thoughts down in good order" (R ob erts, 1971:21). G oldm an se e m e d to sum up the R o o sev e lt sp ee ch w r ite r r e la tionsh ip m o st aptly: I I ___________________________________________________ 90 The effectiv en ess of the R oosevelt prose is a com m entary on what the relationship between a P resid en t and ghost w riters can be. F. D. R. h im se lf was not a particularly good w riter, but he used aides with his own kind of literary genius. No one has ev er been m ore skillful at choosing m en who could say just what he wanted said in just the way he wanted it said. And then, throughout the p r o c e ss , the ghosts w ere aware of a decidedly real p r e sen ce , the | Franklin R oosevelt of the sp ecial touch, (1962:14) I H arry Truman never had any form al training in public speaking] j } and said that he had never read a textbook on the subject (White and j H enderlider, 1964:38). This lack of background may have been one ] | reason for his relying on such sp eech w riters as C harles Murphy, I Matt Connelly, C harles R o ss, John Franklin C arter, David Lloyd, G eorge E lse y , David B ell, and Clark Clifford. C lifford was conceded to have been the chief of th ese w riters (F a rra r, 1956:114). In d iscu ss ing the resp o n sib ilities of his sp eech w riters, Truman said, "Their j function was to aid in gathering m aterial and putting sp eech es to- jgether" (White and H en derlider, 1954:38). John F. C arter delineated the Truman speechw riting p r o c ess further: In preparing his sp e e c h e s, Truman used the a sse m b ly -lin e technique. The various governm ent departm ents provided the ! raw m aterial. The night shift put it into draft form . Clark C lifford and Matt Connelly edited it. The P resid en t looked it over, often d iscu ssin g it with his w ife, m ade a few ch an ges, and then d elivered it. The whole p ro cess was c r isp and authoritative. (1960:26) In d iscu ssin g the 1948 cam paign, C arter (writing under the pseudonym jof Jay Franklin) related: | j 1 The 300-odd sp eech es w ere the creation s of a com p osite human j brain com p osed of eight or ten individuals, including the P resid en t 91 and h is fam ily . We could not afford the tim e for pride of author ship or p erson al p r e stig e . (1948:48) M ost o b s e r v e r s a greed that Trum an w as at his b est when speak ing extem p oran eou sly. C h arles R o s s , h is P r e s s S e creta ry and s o m e - I I tim e s sp e e c h w r ite r , com m en ted that the "w histle stop" extem p ran eou s j i sp e e c h e s "w ere perhaps m ore im portant than the m ajor a d d re sses" | (1948:88). P r o fe ssio n a l p o llste r s in New York fe lt that T rum an's j speaking sign ifican tly contributed to his popularity with the vo ters j (B rennan, 1949:285-298). C ole B rem b eck (1952:43), who c lo s e ly j studied the 1948 P r e sid e n tia l cam paign, stated that T rum an's A pril 17, 1948 a d d re ss to the A m erica n Society of N ew spaper E d itors in W ashington w as the f ir s t public revelation of the power o f the P r e s i dent's extem p oran eou s d e liv e ry . C h arles R o b erts, in h is a r tic le "A P r e sid e n tia l G host Story," m ade the sta tem en t, h o w ev er, that C lark ! C lifford w rote T rum an's " g iv e -e m -h e ll" cam p aign sp e e c h e s in 1948 I (1971:21). John F. C a r ter , a top sp eech w riter and planner in the T rum an cam p , analyzed T rum an's extem p oran eou s speaking and regarded the "w histle stop" sp e e c h e s and g en era l sp eech w ritin g p r o ced ure this way: He [C h arlie M urphy] and G eorge E ls e y , the "w histle stop" and "rear platform " ex p ert who had the backbreaking job of preparing m a te r ia l for all the m ajor s p e e c h e s , and 1 w orked about 18 or 20 hours a day. We did the fir s t drafts. When we had a draft read y, ! Murphy took it to C lark C lifford of St. L o u is - -a m an with a c le a r [ head, an intim ate know ledge of P r e sid e n t Trum an and an e x c e p tional g ra sp of o v e r - a ll c o n sid era tio n s of m ajor policy which g o v ern ed our o p era tio n s. When Clifford was sa tisfied , Charlie R o ss, Matt C onnelly, Clifford and Murphy usually review ed the draft and then talked it over with the P resid en t and M rs. Truman. M rs. Truman, by all accounts, held her own opinions and judgm ents, frequently at v a r iance with the P resid en t and usually sound and im portant. M ar garet Truman also took part in these d isc u ssio n s. Harry Truman had no pride of authorship or opinion. But he had a Lincolnian talent for sim plifying an idea and ex p ressin g it in ter m s fam iliar to the people he ad d ressed . (Franklin, 1948:48) In com m enting on his own speech preparation, Truman said, "I have alw ays taken great personal pains with every form al add ress. Each of my sp eech es goes through from three to ten d rafts, and o c casion ally m ore" (White and H enderlider, 1954:39-40). Truman d escrib ed his method of preparing m anuscripts of form al ad d resses: The procedure I follow ed as P resid en t was to suggest to my staff an outline of what 1 wanted to say. Never detailed, the outline con sisted largely of a listing of the m ost im portant points. The staff then gathered the n e c e ssa r y data and drew up a rough draft. This and succeeding drafts w ere d iscu sse d in staff converence. A fter each of th ese d isc u ssio n s, I again studied the particular draft carefu lly and made additional changes. Even after the m a ster copy was prepared I would frequently rework many pages. In the 1 hope of m aking the m e s sa g e as c le a r and as sim ply worded as p o s sib le , I often made m inor changes as late as an hour or so before delivery. S om etim es I would pencil an "off-the-cuff" rem ark into the m argin just before going on the air. (White and H enderlider, 1954:40). H ow ever, Truman drew a distinction between his form al and |his extem poraneous sp eech es: If I had m y c h o ice, I would alw ays speak extem poraneously. H ow e v e r , as P resid en t I was com p elled to read m ost of m y sp eech es. While I fee l le s s strained than I u sed to, I'm still not com p letely at hom e when I have to read from a text. Like alm ost everyone l e ls e , I talk m ore effectiv ely than I read. (White and H enderlider, 1954:41) Trum an's version of the "whistle stop" puts C arter's description into \ | en tirely different perspective: For extem pore sp ee ch es, such as the w h istle-sto p talks in the 1948 cam paign, 1 needed little if any reh ea rsa l. Campaign sp eech es are based on the party platform and on the party record. Of c o u r se, the person making such a speech knows both intim ately. 1 At the w h istle -sto p s 1 didn't even take my sp eech notebook to the train platform . 1 spoke "off the cuff" without resortin g to notes ■ or m anuscript. (White and H enderlider, 1954:41) i The accu racy of Trum an's account is supported by the fact that n u m er ous new sm en and other o b ser v er s com m ented on the absen ce of any j j notes or m anuscript. Apparently, on this train trip, the speechw riterd and r e se a r c h e r s prepared m anu scripts which Truman read as la st- ! m inute rem ind ers of ideas that he m ight use; he then laid the scrip ts aside and paraphrased, added, deleted, or m odified "off the cuff." I i Edward T. F olliard , a White House corresp ond en t, indicated I that one day as he was interview ing C lark C lifford about a sp ecial i assign m en t, C lifford began to tell him about a sp eech he had recently I i w ritten for the President: Clifford said that when he sent a draft to Mr. Trum an, it would be returned all clu ttered with changes and additions, w ritten between the lin es and in the m argin s. T his, he said, happened over and over again, and he had to do seven drafts before the speech w as finished. All things con sid ered , C lifford said , the speech was Mr. Trum an's own handiwork. (F olliard , 1972:18) In P resid en t E isen h ow er's adm inistration, Kevin McKann, fo r m erly P resid en t of Defiance C ollege (Ohio), is reputed to have done m o st of the E isenhow er speechw riting (F arrar, 1956:114). During the ; 94 1956 cam p aign, a n ew spap er co lu m n ist a s s e r te d that th ere w ere: . . . five princip al a r ch ite cts of the E isen h o w er a d d r e sse s: E m m ett J. H ughes, Arthur L a rso n , K evin M cCann, G abriel H auge, and R obert C utler. . . . The job of all is to take the c a n didate's thoughts and put them into read ab le, speakable form in which he can p resen t them e ffe ctiv e ly to the e le c to r a te . (F u e s s , j 1958:45) | Thonnsen and B aird add to this lis t of E isen h o w er w r ite r s the n am es | I of M alcolm M oos and Sherm an A dam s (1970:333). ! During the 1952 cam p aign, fee lin g that E isen h o w er could p r o - ! vide the fo reig n p olicy lea d ersh ip that the nation n eed ed , E m m ett j H ughes got a lea v e of a b sen ce from T im e, Inc. , and went to work for \ I 'the E isen h o w er cam paign as a sp ee ch w r ite r. Hughes is gen erally cred ited ("A F in e Hand," T im e , June 20, 1960:11) with su g g estin g to candidate E isen h o w er a line that m ade em in en t good se n se to a lif e long m ilita ry m an and a line which u ltim a tely b ecam e the cam p aign 's m o st fam ous and p o litica lly effectiv e p ro m ise; "I sh all go to K orea." In a lette r published in Life (M arch 16, 1959:106), E isen h ow er openly acknow ledge the h elp of one of h is sp e e c h w r ite r s , thanking him ifor the "fine resu lt" he "did so m uch to produce." "On e v e r y sid e I have had co m p lim en ts con cern in g the content of the talk," said the P r e sid e n t, adding: "I am so r r y you could not take o v er a lso its delive r y ." John F . K ennedy's use of sp e e c h w r ite r s w as w idely known and i t fr e e ly acknow ledged (G olden, 1966:348). During h is te r m a s P r e s i - dcnt. he r e lie d on a sm a ll c o te r ie of w r ite r s , including the fo r m e r 95 Dean of the F aculty at H arvard U n iv ersity , M cG eorge Bundy; the P u litz e r P rize -w in n in g h isto ria n , Arthur S c h le sin g e r , Jr. ; the b r il lian t young H arvard Law School graduate, R ichard Goodwin; and a fo r m e r attorney for the F e d e r a l Security A gency, T heodore Sorenson (G olden, 1966:349). A lso contributing to the Kennedy sp eech w ritin g effo r t w ere the P r e sid e n t's brother R ob ert, and P ie r r e Salinger (T honnsen and B aird, 1970:333). E a rly in his c a r e e r a s a sen a to r, Kennedy b ecam e convinced that a large group of a d v iso r s could su bm it id e a s, propose ou tlin es, and su g g e st r e v is io n s , but they could not produce a fin ish ed sp eech exem p lifyin g continuity of thought and p r e c isio n of style. A s a r esu lt, he turned p rim a rily to the m an who w as to b ecom e his principal c o l la b o r a to r and a lter ego, Theodore S oren son (Soren son , 1965:330-331). i So c lo s e ly did S oren son com e to be identified with John Kennedy that r ep o rters ob served : "When Jack is wounded, Ted bleed s" (B aker, 1961:6). In 1962, R ichard Nixon said: "It's e a s ie r for Kennedy to get up and read S o ren so n 's s p e e c h e s . But I don't think it's resp on sib le lunless he b e lie v e s it deeply h im se lf" (L evy, 1962:105). Kennedy m ade no attem pt to hide h is r elia n c e on S orenson . In h is p o st-e le c tio n m eetin g with N ixon, Kennedy rem ark ed , "In the end I found m y se lf r e - i lying m o re and m o r e on S oren son , who w as with m e on the cam paign tour and who th e re fo re could rea c t to and r e fle c t u p -to -th e -m in u te ta c- i tica l sh ifts in our b asic policy" (Nixon, 1962:407). It w as b ecau se of this unique relation sh ip with Kennedy that j S oren son w as able to w rite m any of the P r e sid e n t's public u tteran ces ("When Johnson P lan s a Speech," U .S . N ew s & c W orld R e p o r t, F e b r u ary 3, 1964:33). M iller com m ented: ! S oren son c er ta in ly appeared . . . to be m uch m ore than K ennedy's , "sp eech w riter" or "rhetorician"; he se e m e d m o re n ea rly h is in te l- j lectu a l co lla b o ra to r and, as the cu rren t p o litic a l-s c ie n c e jargon | m ight put it, his c o -d e c is io n -m a k e r . . . . Sorenson w as a lso , ; and m ore im portantly, the m ain participant in the d e c isio n s in and behind and around the sp e e c h e s. (M ille r , 1964:27) l W henever S oren son brought in a m a n u scrip t for K ennedy's rea ctio n , j I they engaged in long p eriod s of editing, collab o ratin g, and rew riting up to the hour of d e liv e ry (Golden, 1966:352). T h ese joint efforts o c c a sio n a lly annoyed M rs. E velyn L incoln, K ennedy's s e c r e ta r y , who com p lain ed that the p ages she w as to type under s e v e r e tim e p r e ssu r e I jwere often "m ixed up and renum bered and filled with arrow s and in c o m p r e h e n s ib le lin es with little n otes in both K ennedy's handwriting and Ted S o ren son 's" (L in coln , 1965:30). Kennedy was able to read printed m a te r ia ls silen tly at the rate of 1200 w ords per m inute with aston ishin g a ccu ra cy and rem ark able r e c a ll (S c h le sin g e r, 1965:104-105). B e ca u se of this fa c ility , Kennedy w as an avid rea d er fa scin a ted sp e c ific a lly with biography, h isto r y , E n glish and A m erica n lite r a tu r e , and public a d d r e ss. B enjam in Brad* le e , one of K ennedy's c lo s e frien d s ob serv ed : "He studied and r e m em b ered g r ea t o ra to r s - -fro m Burke to C h u rch ill--b a ck w a rd and forw ard" (Golden, 1966:348). In the a r tic le , "A C lo se r Look at K en nedy," N ew sw eek added an in te re stin g com m en tary to th is p reo ccu p a tion of K ennedy's: Jack is fa scin a ted by language, and a d m ir es good con versation . . . . Twenty y e a r s ago he started co llec tin g good q u o tes, typing i them out and keeping them in a lo o s e - le a f black notebook. He often interrup ts h is reading with, " T h ere's a h ell of a ph rase," ' and then read s it aloud. (July 4, 1960:23) ! In com m en tin g sp e c ific a lly on K ennedy's m ode of developing sp e e c h e s , Soren son said that the P r e sid e n t a lm o st alw ays se r v e d as j an outliner who su g g ested gu id elin es which an a ssista n t u sed in writing! a fir s t draft. Second, he a lm o st alw ays acted as an editor and c o lla b orator who gen erated thoughts, r e v ise d a rg u m en ts, d eleted w ord s, s e n te n c e s , and paragrap h s, and in serted o th e rs. Third, he s o m e - I tim e s--th o u g h not very o fte n --a s s u m e d the task of c r e a to r who both ■conceived and phrased the sp eech (Soren son , 1966). S c h le sin g e r r e c a lle d the sp eech preparation s th is way: He would begin work on a sp ee ch by ca llin g in the w riter and sk etch in g out h is id e a s. When the o c c a sio n w as s e r io u s , he would read the draft with in ten se c a r e , scrib b le ille g ib ly on the m argin and then go o v e r the r esu lt with the w riter. . . . He w as an e x c e lle n t ed ito r, sk illed at turning up thoughts and elim in atin g verb al e x c e s s . Above a ll, he loved pungent e x p r e s s io n s . (1965:690) On January 13, 1961, the New York T im es published an a r tic le entitled: "Kennedy A im s for a High P la c e in United States H isto ry with |lnaugural." A s early a s N ovem b er, he s o lic ite d su g g estio n s for h is Inaugural A d d ress fro m su ch m en as Josep h K raft, John Kenneth 98 i Galbraith, Adlai Stevenson, and C h ester B ow les. In addition, he l encouraged Sorenson to peruse previous inaugural a d d r e sse s and L incoln's sp eech at Gettysburg (Golden, 1966:354). Salinger pointed out, how ever, that Kennedy was determ ined from the outset that the ! speech "would be his and his alone" (1966:109). j i G albraith, in review ing a book of Kennedy sp e e c h e s, indicated J | that "no P re sid e n t could be without ghost w r ite r s, and there could j 'scarcely be a fact of le s s im portance." Galbraith said that Kennedy knew what he wanted to say, and what he was sa yin g --an d that his - sp eech w riters w ere his serv a n ts, not his m a ster (F olliard , 1972:18). Scam m on and W attenberg echoed G albraith's rem arks and further declared: I When the P resid en t walks up to that podium with that black ring | binder notebook, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference who wrote what p a ra g ra p h --it's his sp eech . The sp eech w riter is a creatu re of the P resid en t, not the other way around. (1970:27) i R obert T. Hall (1963) wrote a d isserta tio n dealing with the rhetorical a sp ects of Lyndon Johnson's sp eech preparation. L ater, an article was published in the Q uarterly Journal of Speech (Hall, 1965: 168-176) condensing m ajor portions of the d issertation . In that article Hall stated, concerning Johnson's use of sp eech w riters: P o litica l sp eech es are not w ritten, they are rew ritten, not chiefly by the speaker but by his a id es. The preparation of p o lit ica l sp ee ch es v a ries am ont politicans and their sp eech w riters. N aturally there are a few politicans who w rite their own sp eech es or at le a s t try to, but the p r e ssu r e s of cam paigning or the burdens 99 of p o litica l o ffice usually preven t th eir u tilizin g a p erso n a l approach to any g rea t extent. (1965:169) It is c le a r that when Johnson w as s till a sen ato r in 1959* m any looked to him as the m o st pow erful m an in the country next to E is e n how er ("Building a 'White H ouse' on C apitol H ill," U .S . N ew s fa W orld i j R ep o rt, F eb ru ary 13, 1959:64-66). E ven then, Johnson had an F D R - like "brain trust" that contained even so m e of R o o se v e lt's old a d v iso r s, I A m ong the m o r e prom inent of the group w ere Dean A ch eson , T hom as | j C ocoran , B enjam in C ohen, J a m es R ow e, Abe F o r ta s, and C lark C iif- j ford. H ow ever, it is thought that H orace B usby, a Texan who had | w orked with the P r e sid e n t for y e a r s and knew what M r. Johnson wanted, w as the princip al sp eech w riter ("When Johnson P lan s a j Speech," U. S. N ew s fe World R eport, F eb ru ary 3, 1964:33). H uebner su g g ested , con cern in g the Johnson m ethod of sp eech !p rep aration , that: | ; P r e sid e n t Joh n son 's w r ite r s . . . would prepare for him a full reading tex t for a lm o st e v er y o c c a sio n on which he spoke in pub lic , fo rm a l or in form al, w hether it w as introducing a new a p poin tee, g reetin g a foreign lea d er , aw arding a m ed al or a d d r e s s ing a convention. And he would u su a lly read from th ose tex ts. (1970:2) A ccord in g to H all, the P r e sid e n t had a d istin ct philosophy aboul the place and im portance releg a ted to speaking: . . . during his [J oh n son 's] e a rly y e a r s in public life he w as not co n cern ed with the fa stid io u s refin em en ts of sp eech . He had none of the eloq uence of a R o o se v e lt or a Kennedy, he had no tim e for eloq uence; he w as too m uch of a feudal baron to d elega te c o m - 100 plete authority to his sp eech w r ite r s as Trum an did; and he ra rely took the tim e to be le g isla tiv e in h is preparation of a sp eech . ! (1965:169) F o llia rd com m en ted that in 1968 he watched a te le v is io n show relating how P re sid e n t Johnson's State of the Union A d d ress had been j i prepared: F ir s t , Joseph A. C alifano Jr. , then a White House sp ec ia l a B sist- i ant, ca m e on the s c r e e n and told how he had gathered m a teria l for the m e s s a g e , catalogin g and filing it o v er a period of m any m onths. Then H arry C. M cP h erso n , S p ecia l C ounsel to the P r e s i dent, took o v e r. He told how he had worked on the m e s s a g e itse lf --th a t i s , on the w riting of it. 1 thought it w as a good p rogram , ! and 1 don't su pp ose that any view er w as su r p r ise d , m uch l e s s | sh ock ed , to learn that LBJ had em p loyed a ghost. (1972:18) N o v e list John Steinbeck worked on John son 's 1965 Inaugural A d d ress and con cocted a line that apparently the P r e sid e n t's other w r ite rs did not like: "I do not b eliev e that the G reat Society is an o rd ered , iC hangeless, and s te r ile battalion of ants" (R ob erts, 1971:21). A c co r d ing to R oberts: When R ichard N. G oodwin, who had w ritten the origin al G reat S ociety sp eech eight m onths e a r lie r , knocked it out of the P r e s i dent's final draft, Johnson exploded to two aides: "Goddamit, if John Steinbeck sa y s that A m erica n so c iety is a ste r ile battalion of a n ts, nothing you young punks can do can m ake it an u n sterile battalion of ants I " A s a lw a y s, the P r e sid e n t got the la st word. He pen ciled the ants back in on h is way to the C apitol. (1971:21) A s P r e sid e n t, Johnson u sed a cadre of sp ee c h w r ite r s that differed fro m th o se he u sed as sen a tor. In "Who's W riting L B J's 'Speeches ?," U .S . N ew s fa World R eport in d icated that h is White H ouse I staff of sp e e c h w r ite r s included such notab les as H orace B usby, B ill M o y er s, R ichard Goodwin, Jack V alenti, D ou glass C a ter, and \ Me G eorge Bundy. C oncerning the participation of so m any w r ite r s in ! the sp eech developm ent p r o c e s s and the con cern that the fin ish ed p r o duct rea lly would not be the P r e s id e n t's , the a r tic le continued: | A ctu ally, th ere is probably m ore of the P r e sid e n t in the w ords of a ghost w riter than the w riter could even adm it to h im se lf. He takes the P r e sid e n t's in str u c tio n s, his thoughts, his w o rd s, and j ab sorb s them a ll to put them on paper. Can one h on estly say that ! such a sp eech is not the P r e s id e n t's ? (June 28, 1965:57) i In another a r tic le , "When Johnson P lan s a Speech," U. S. N ew s & j I W orld R eport, concluded that: 1 ' | i I . . . none of [the] sp e e c h w r ite r s has e v e r c la im ed that he spoke i for the P r e sid e n t of the U .S . . . . S p eech w riters get the facts and fig u r e s, they prepare the rough d rafts, but in the end it is the P re sid e n t h im se lf who d ecid es what he w ill say and how he j w ill say it. (F eb ru ary 3, 1964:33) j i j No m atter how long they toil over a sp eech , m o st P re sid e n tia l sp e e c h w r ite r s would a g ree that the final r e su lt is e s s e n tia lly their p rin cip a l's. H arry M cP h erso n , the W ashington law yer who w rote Joh n son 's M arch 1968 V ietnam turnaround sp ee ch , observed: You m ay entertain the id ea that you are the '{eminence grise* b e hind the P r e sid e n t's p o lic ie s. . . . But you kid y o u r se lf, r ea lly , when you think you are doing som eth in g on e, that he is not w illing to do: two, that he has not been pointing to: and th r e e , that he isn 't going to shape into som ething of h is own before it's o v er. (R ob erts, 1971:22) B ill M o y e r s, who started w riting for Johnson at 25, co n cu rs with M cP h e rso n and adds further: "I n ev er w rote a sp eech for the P r e s i- i dent that em e rg e d ex a ctly as I w rote it" (R o b erts, 1971:22). A s an 102 ex a m p le, M oyer cited a "very m oderate" sp eech on V ietnam he helped draft in 1966. On the way to his forum in C hicago, the P r e sid e n t interpolated a sla sh in g attack on w ar d is se n te r s as "nervous N e llie s," which changed the whole tone of the sp eech . C on clu sion s I I T here are innum erable r e fe r e n c e s to and ex a m p les of sp e e c h - | i i w riting ("ghostw riting") in the h isto ry of the p resid en cy of the United S tates. H ow ever, no study con cen trated on the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e d u res by any presid en t has been m ade. The follow ing con clu sion s se e m justified: 1. A m erica n p r e sid e n tia l ghostw riting began with G eorge W ashington. 2. M ost, p o ssib ly a ll, p resid en ts have u tilized g h o stw riters in varying w ays and to d ifferent ex ten ts. 3. F r o m the tim e of G eorge W ashington until the 1930s, c o n tributors to the preparation of p resid en tia l sp e e c h e s w ere o c ca sio n a lly i acknow ledged, but usually they rem ain ed anonym ous. 4. During the f ir s t te r m of P r e sid e n t F ranklin D. R o o sev e lt, the e x iste n c e of what he c a lled h is "brain trust" and its functions, which included variou s kinds of a ss is ta n c e in his sp eech preparation , jwere openly acknow ledged and w idely publicized. 103 5. The policy of public acknow ledgm ent of the utilization of 'presidential sp ee ch w r ite rs w as continued by P r e sid e n ts Truman, E isen h o w er, K ennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. 6. Sufficient first-h a n d inform ation w as se cu re d on N ixon's five im m ed iate p r e d e c e s s o r s showing unique or m ajor c h a r a c te r istic s in the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s e s of ea ch , to provide for g en era l com par- ' I iso n s and c o n tra sts am ong them relevan t to P r e sid e n t Nixon. I l CHAPTER IV PRESIDENT NIXON'S POLICY ON SPEECHW RITERS The W riting and R e se a r c h D ivision G eneral D escrip tio n P r e sid e n t R ichard M. Nixon m aintains a "Writing and R e se a r c h D ivision" of the White H ouse staff which is la rg e ly resp o n sib le for the m illio n s of words which annually flow from the E xecu tive M ansion. L ocated adjacent to the w est wing of the White House and connected by a m a ze of underground tun nels, the Old E xecu tive O ffice Building h o u se s m o st of the P r e sid e n t's a ss is ta n ts and a d v iso r s, including his w r ite r s . C om p osition of N ixon's Speechw riting Staff J a m es K eogh, a fo rm e r execu tive editor for T im e m agazin e '(1968), w as in charge of White H ouse w riting until his resign ation in D ecem b er 1970. The form ation of the W riting and R e se a r c h D iv isio n ev olved from the 1968 cam paign before Nixon se cu re d the nom ination and, as the needs grew , m o re people w ere added. Joining th is group L 104 105 i after the nom inating convention in 1968, Keogh rem arked: * At that tim e it was the so r t of stru ctu re that M r. Nixon dealt with h im se lf, with Bob H aldem an [H. R. H aldem an, now a ss is ta n t to the P resid en t] so r t of running it. I cam e aboard to be m anager and editor. No one had been coordinating it. The candidate didn't have tim e and H aldem an w as busy doing other things. I operated ( with the w r ite rs a s would se n io r p artn ers in a law firm . (Bona- fed e, 1972:312) | I i A fter the e le ctio n , the o ffic e s for the group w ere tra n sferred to the Old E xecu tive Office Building. C e c ilia B e llin g e r had worked in j i r the Johnson and Kennedy ad m in istration s in a r e se a r c h cap acity and j ! ■ I Keogh brought her in with the r esp o n sib ility of organ izin g a r e se a r c h i f contingent to co m p lem en t the w riting staff. When Keogh rejoined the j I - Tim e staff in 1970, Raym ond K. P r ic e w as appointed the D iv isio n 's \ d ir ec to r, the position he cu rren tly holds. The p resen t W riting and j R e se a r c h D iv isio n , headed by P r ic e , in clu d es th ree other fro n t-lin e [w riters: P atrick J. Buchanan, W illiam L. S a fire, and the R ev. John i J. M cLaughlin, the f ir s t C atholic p r ie s t to s e r v e o fficia lly in the White H ouse. All hold the title of sp e c ia l a s s is ta n t to the P re sid e n t. On the next le v e l are six backup w riters: L ee W. H uebner, N oel Koch, John K. A n drew s, H arold (Tex) L e z a r , E lisk a A . H asek, and John (Jack) M cDonald. David R. G ergen, who s e r v e s as an aide R e fe r e n c e s throughout this d isse r ta tio n to m e m b e r s of the [P resid en tia l staff are as of the dates of the in te r v ie w s. A few m onths [later, of c o u r s e , a num ber of the P r e s id e n t’s staff m em b er s resig n ed jin connection with the "W atergate A ffair." 106 to P r i c e , a lso acts o c c a sio n a lly as a sp ee ch w r ite r. They are all deputy sp e c ia l a ss is ta n ts to the P re sid e n t. Led by fo rm er T im e m agazin e r e se a r c h e r C e c ilia B. B ellin ger the r e se a r c h staff a ss is tin g the w r ite r s is co m p o sed of Ann M. M or gan, P a m ela A. G ile s, and M aureen W. Brown. A lso attached to P r ic e 's staff is Lyndon K. A llin who, with four a id e s, c o m p ile s the " P resid en t's D aily N ew s Sum m ary" under the su p erv isio n of Buchanan. A ll of the w r ite r s enjoy la rg e individual o ffic e s w hose siz e s e e m s to in c r e a se with th eir im portance on the staff. Located on the secon d flo o r of the Old E xecu tive O ffice Building at 17th and P e n n s y l vania A venue, the o ffic e s have little of the "federal" flavor so com m on in govern m en t buildings. They are plushly d ecorated with co lo rfu l, i 'thick pile carp etin g and elegant fu rn ish in g s. E ach w riter has his own se c r e ta r y , who a lso has h er own o ffice. The pervading atm osp h ere in the d iv isio n s e e m s to be anything but com p etitive; if anything, se c u r e , confident, and coop erative. No ev id en ce of jea lo u sy or intern al p o li ticking within the w riting staff w as found during th is in vestigation . When the r e s e a r c h for th is study w as con tem p lated , it b ecam e obvious that an a ccu rate understanding of the Nixon sp eech w ritin g p r o c e ss could be obtained only if con su ltation s with the w r ite r s th e m s e lv e s w ere arran ged . C orresp o n d en ce with P r ic e and s e v e r a l other w r ite rs betw een January and N ovem ber 1972 resu lted in an invitation fr o m P r ic e for the r e s e a r c h e r to spend se v e r a l days in W ashington, D .C . , conducting in terv iew s r ela tiv e to the prop osed study. T ape- record ed s e s s io n s fro m N ovem ber 14-18 w ere conducted with P r ic e , H uebner, A ndrew s, L>ezar, and M cDonald. W illiam F . Gavin, a | I fo r m e r p resid en tia l staff w r ite r, w as a lso in terv iew ed at the o ffice of J Senator J a m es Buckley (C:N. Y.) w here he is em p loyed as a sp e e c h - ! w riter. Of the five w r ite r s not in terview ed , three w ere out of town i i during the taping s e s s io n s and two w ere com m itted by previous t i appointm ents. A ll, h o w ev er, w ere co rd ia l to the p roject and extended I their b e st w ish es. The ta p e -r e c o r d e d and subsequent sten o tra n scrip tio n s of the six in terv iew s are the m o st im portant p rim ary data for the study and 2 are included in Appendix B. F o r p u rp oses of th is study, p rim ary >data are defined a s anything w ritten or spoken by a P re sid e n t or p r e s i dential sp eech w riter; any first-h a n d d escrip tio n s by o b s e r v e r s of the foregoin g. Secondary data a re evalu ation s or co n clu sio n s of o b s e r v e r s . b a c k g r o u n d s of the Nixon S p eech w riters P r ic e , a Yale m an and fo r m e r ed itoria l page editor for the now defunct New York H erald Tribune (1 9 6 4 -6 6 ), has the d istin ction of ! 2 i R e fe r e n c e s for a ll quotations fro m th e se in te rv iew s rep orted in this chapter w ill be by page nu m b ers in Appendix B , w hich w ill be identified by a capital B» e . g . , B -2 0 8 , B -2 0 9 , e tc . 108 being the only sp ee ch w r ite r who did not c a ll Nixon looking for a job. j When the H erald Tribune folded in F eb ru ary 1967, P r ic e turned down ' • s e v e r a l lu cra tiv e job o ffers to co m m en ce work on a novel that w as "to take a se r io u s look at the city as a human institution." N ixon, whom P r ic e did not know, invited him to his New York law o ffice for lunch i and offered him a job a s a staff a ssista n t and sp eech w riter. P r ic e pondered the proposal for a w eek, said "yes," and joined the White | H ouse sta ff's new ly cre a te d W riting and R e se a r c h D iv isio n under d irecto r J a m es Keogh. P r ic e had done little p olitica l sp eech w ritin g before com in g to the White H ouse and, as a r e su lt, found the t r a n s i tion from e d ito ria l w riting to sp eech w ritin g very difficult b ecau se sp eech w ritin g w as "a d ifferent kind of an art form " (B -216). In ad d i tio n to working with Nixon on m o st m ajor a d d r e s s e s , P r ic e is a lso 'regarded as a p erson al ad visor to the P re sid e n t on m a tters of c o m m un ication. Buchanan, a fo rm e r a ssista n t ed ito ria l page editor for the co n se rv a tiv e St. L ouis G lob e-D em ocrat (1964-66), walked up to Nixon i i at a cock tail party in D ecem ber 1965 and sa id , "Sir, if you're going to run for P r e sid e n t in 1968, I want to get aboard early." Nixon h e s i tated . A m onth later Buchanan arranged another in terv iew with Nixon at h is New York law o ffice and, after three h o u rs, got Nixon to a g ree I to h ire him . During the 1968 cam p aign, Buchanan con cen trated on i i I"stump" sp e e c h e s and a lso contributed h eavily to N ixon ’s syn dicated 109 i i new sp ap er colu m n, "The L oyal O pposition." In addition to his o c c a - I l sion al sp eech w ritin g a ssig n m e n ts, Buchanan now s e r v e s m ore as one of the P r e sid e n t's p erso n a l a d v iso rs. S afire is a fo rm e r public rela tio n s m an, native New Y orker, f \ and belongs to the lib era l wing of the R epublican P arty. At one tim e a | i ! rep o rter for the New York H erald Tribune (194 9-51), Safire m et Nixon in M oscow after staging the fam ed "kitchen debates" betw een the then Vice P re sid e n t and K rushchev. In I960, S afire joined the N ixon- Lodge staff as ch ief of sp e c ia l p rojects and has w orked on and off for Nixon e v e r sin ce. In I960, S afire o rgan ized his own public relation s firm and during 1962 was deputy m anager of Senator Jacob Javits' I (R:NY) r e e le c tio n cam paign. A sp eech a ssista n t to Nixon from 1966- 68, S afire joined the White H ouse w riting staff after N ixon's victory in 1968. S a fir e 's sp eech w ritin g contributions are m o stly in the form of p o litica l catch w ord s, slo g a n s, and rh e to r ica l g im m ick s which he has for a long tim e c o lle c te d and so m e of which he published in a book titled The New Language of P o litic s (1968). M cLaughlin, a fo rm e r a ss o c ia te editor of the Jesu it m agazin e A m e r ic a for th ree y e a r s , is the fir s t Catholic p r ie st to se r v e o ffi c ia lly in the White H ouse (B onafede, 1972:312). O cca sio n a lly ca lled "the sw inging celib ate" by White H ouse c o lle a g u e s, M cLaughlin doffed i I h is c le r ic a l garb upon his appointm ent to the White H ouse staff in <June 1971. He now w ea rs the cu rren tly fash ion able w ide tie s and su its with broad la p e ls. H is path to the White H ouse was opened by his vigorous but u n su cc essfu l effort to u n seat Senator John O. P a sto r e : (D. ) in the 1970 Senatorial electio n in Rhode Island. As he stated: j i At the m a g a zin e, we u sed to get into ed ito ria l d isc u ssio n s about p o litic s, about what the P r e sid e n t w as trying to do. 1 found m y - | s e lf in c re a sin g ly com fortab le with h is p o lic ie s. . . . C hotiner, C olson and Buchanan w ere m y principal con tacts at the White ' H ouse during the cam paign. They w ere intrigued by the co n test and the way 1 h a rried P a sto r e . Buchanan, an Irish C atholic, had read m e in A m e r ic a . 1 talked to th em , som eone su g g ested I talk | with Ray P r ic e and here I am . (B onafede, 1972:318) H uebner, a m em b er of the White H ouse w riting staff sin ce j 1969, holds a Ph. D. from H arvard in A m erican H isto ry , w here he was a teaching fellow in h isto ry and coach ed the debating tea m . Co-founding; the Ripon S ociety, a R epublican r e se a r c h organ ization , H uebner ; serv ed as its p resid en t for two y e a r s before joining N ixon's staff. He m ade contact with Nixon as a resu lt of a Ripon r e se a r c h paper he authored and w as su bseq uently invited to join the White H ouse w riting staff. Of all the P r e sid e n t's w r ite r s , Huebner has the m o st e x te n siv e training in sp eech com m u nication but, lik e P r ic e , had no ex p e rien ce in p o litica l sp eech w riter per se before he went to w ork for Nixon. A n d rew s, after graduating fro m P rin cip ia C o lleg e in Illin ois and spending three y e a r s in the Navy as a subm arine o ffic e r , joined Ron Z ie g le r 's staff in the White H ouse P r e s s O ffice. During h is te n ure th ere, Andrew s b ecam e acquainted with P r ic e and in 1970, when i [the latter w as elev a ted to d irecto r of the W riting and R e se a rc h D iv i I l l sio n , A n d rew s w as a sk ed if he w ould lik e a change of a ss ig n m e n ts . ! H is b e s t q u a lifica tio n a s a N ixon sp e e c h w r ite r , A n d rew s f e lt , ca m e b e c a u se of h is w ork fo r the P r e s s S e c r e ta r y w h ose fu n ctio n s in clu d ed th e c o lle c tio n and d is se m in a tio n of e v e r y w ord that the P r e s id e n t sp oke p u b licly . A n d rew s' P r e s s O ffice r e sp o n s ib ility w as to p ro o frea d a ll i the P r e s id e n t's ste n o tr a n sc r ip tio n s b efo re th ey b eca m e public; j . . . fo r a s o lid y e a r I h eard the P r e s id e n t sp eak to the public ^ v e ry fre q u en tly . I w as in and out of h is o ffic e w ith p r e s s p ools who w ould go in to photograph so m e kind o f an ev en t [and] X did j g e t a f e e l of what he is lik e in a s m a ll group and how he in te r a c ts in m e e tin g p e o p le. I fe lt 1 had so m e s e n s e of what type of m an he | is plu s I had been a b so rb in g m o re o r l e s s by o s m o s is h is sp eak in g s ty le w ithout r e a lly know ing it. . . . My point is that I fe lt I had a g r e a t running sta r t to c o m e into th is job fr o m havin g had that a p p r e n tic e sh ip in th e P r e s s O ffice. (A n d rew s, B -2 7 8 ) L e z a r grad u ated fro m Y ale in 1970 and w as h ir ed a s a s p e c ia l a s s is ta n t to c o lu m n ist W illiam F . B u ck ley . They c o lla b o r a te d on the [m an u scrip t fo r a y e t u n r e le a s e d book title d M ajor I s s u e s o f the T im e, i w hich d ea lt w ith what th ey sa w a s the sig n ific a n t co n tem p o ra ry is s u e s i fa cin g m o d ern m an. L e za r le ft a fter a y e a r w ith B u ck ley to atten d O xford 's Law S c h o o l, but w a s d istr a c te d by an o ffe r from P r ic e to jo in the P r e s id e n t's w ritin g sta ff, w h ich he did in A p ril 1971. M cD on ald, fo r m e r n ew sp a p er r e p o r te r and o n e -tim e s p e e c h w r ite r fo r R ep u b lican N a tio n a l C o m m ittee C h airm an T h u rston M orton, h a s b een in sp e e c h w r itin g m o st of h is life . He h as con trib u ted to m any S p e e c h e s for b u s in e s s e x e c u tiv e s . S in ce lea v in g M orton 's o ffic e in 11961, M cD onald h a s tak en sp e e c h w r itin g a ss ig n m e n ts w h e r e v e r he 112 cou ld get th em sim p ly a s a m ea n s to m ake m o re m oney: My o b je c tiv e in b ein g a fr e e la n ce w r ite r is to m ak e m o n e y , not to p ro m o te any c a u se o r p o se any c a u s e . It is to a c h iev e m o n e y m ak in g a s s ig n m e n ts . When I m e e t w ith m y c lie n t I h ave to d e c i pher what it is he is try in g to sa y and then do it for h im . In th is i b u s in e s s you have to be a good tr a n sc e n d e n ta list. (M cD onald, B -3 2 0 ) i j He jo in ed the P r e s id e n t's w ritin g sta ff in M arch 1971 c h ie fly through h is fr ie n d sh ip w ith P r ic e . G avin , a fo r m e r sta ff m e m b e r , w orked a s a N ixon s p e e c h - ! w r ite r fr o m M ay 1968 to July 1970. T each in g high sc h o o l E n g lish in | A bington, P e n n sy lv a n ia , G avin w ro te to N ixon in M ay 1967, u rgin g him] j to run for the p r e s id e n c y , and w as su r p r ise d w hen N ixon a sk ed him to jo in h is te a m of w r ite r s . At th e tim e , G avin w as to ta lly in e x p e r ie n c e d a s a s p e e c h w r ite r , h is on ly h is to r y o f p u b lication b ein g a r tic le s in the j E n g lish J ou rn al and N ation al R e v ie w . G avin w as a s s ig n e d what he fe lt | w e r e the u n im p o rta n t, m en ia l ta s k s su rrou n d in g P r e s id e n tia l c o m m u - I n ic a tio n and in d ica ted that th is a ssig n m e n t led to h is ev en tu a l r e s ig n a tio n fro m N ix o n ’s w ritin g staff: 1 c a n , in p a r e n th e s is , sa y that th is w a s n ’t a d isco n ten t; it w a sn 't a gnaw ing o r b itte r d isc o n te n t. It w as kind of an id e a that I w anted to do s p e e c h e s o r to do so m eth in g e l s e . The fa c t i s that I knew th at I w a sn 't goin g to be a b le to do it th e r e . O ver a p erio d of tim e I found that I m et m y s e lf c o m in g in th e d oor. F o r e x a m p le , in 1 9 6 9 --and I'm m ak in g th is u p --y o u w ould do th e B oy S cou t Day p r o c la m a tio n and a ll of a su dd en it w as 1970 and you w e r e doing th e B oy S cou t Day p r o c la m a tio n again . . . . I w as ju s t lo sin g the tou ch fo r the th in g. (G avin, B -2 4 8 ) ( F r o m the o b v io u s d iv e r s ity in the N ixon w r ite r s ' b a ck g ro u n d s, 113 i j it s e e m s that N ixon had a d e lib e r a te p o lic y in m ind a s he fo rm u la ted h is w ritin g sta ff. T h eir s e le c tio n w ould in d ica te s e v e r a l in fe r e n c e s : 1. With the e x c e p tio n of M cD on ald. N ixon did not w ant fo r m e r p r o fe s s io n a l sp e e c h w r ite r s . 2. With the e x c e p tio n of H u eb n er, N ixon did not want w r ite r s w ith s p e c ific tra in in g in the sp e e c h co m m u n ica tio n field ; not that he v iew ed that tra in in g a s u n im p ortan t, fo r h is own background in d ic a te s o th e r w is e , but ra th er than the w ork req u ire d of h is w r ite r s w ould in v o lv e a c tiv itie s oth er than juBt w ritin g s p e e c h e s . 3. He did n ot want w r ite r s who w ould a lso s e r v e a s p o licy a d v is o r s . 4. He did not w ant w r ite r s who w ould a ttem p t to d om in ate h is thou ghts o r in flu en ce h is p o lic y d e c is io n s . 5. He did want a d iv e r s ity in b ack grou n d s. 6. He did want p e r so n s who cou ld w rite rap id ly and c o m p eten tly . S p eech w riters* R e a c tio n s to the T erm " G h ostw riter" D u rin g the in te r v ie w s the r e s e a r c h e r in tro d u ced the te r m " g h o stw r itin g " and a ll fiv e w r ite r s in te r v ie w e d , plu s G avin, had n e g a tiv e r e a c tio n s to th e w ord. "I h ate the te r m ," d e c la r e d P r ic e . "It r a is e s the h a c k le s on the back of m y neck" (B -2 1 8 ). H uebner r e m a rk ed , " T h at's not a te r m that 1 have h ea rd u sed in W ashington at all" (B -2 3 9 ). T ex L e z a r ju st did not " a s s o c ia te w ith the w ord v ery w ell" {B -3 0 8 ). The w ord "ghost" to M cD onald is "kind o f an o ld - jfash ion ed te r m . You a r e one of P r e s id e n t N ix o n 's w r ite r s o r you a r e lone of S en ator M u sk ie's w r ite r s . I don't e v e r h ea r the w ord g h o st- 1 114 W riter a n y m o re. 1 h a v en 't run a c r o s s the te r m in a lon g tim e" (B - 317). G avin e x p r e s s e d the p o sitio n sh a red by the staff: . . . I think th at it [the te r m " g h o stw riter" ] is not only p e r - jo r a tiv e but it is in a c c u r a te . 1 don't think anybody ev en sa y s it a n y m o re. It ju s t is n 't a te r m that you u se fo r a sp e e c h w r ite r and I think it 's a good thing. A sp e e c h w r ite r is what the guy i s , not a g h o st, and th e r e is a d efin ite d iffe r e n c e . (B -2 6 4 ) S a fir e arg u ed that: . . . the p r e sid e n c y h as grow n in c o m p lex ity ; c h ie f e x e c u t iv e s - - e v en S e n a to r s and C o n g r e s s m e n --s h o u ld not take tim e fro m th e ir b u sy sc h e d u le s to la b o r o v e r a s p e e c h , c e r ta in ly not it s f ir s t d raft. And sin c e p r e sid e n tia l w ord s c a r r y su ch im p o r t, why not get a g r e a t w r ite r to put th em down in th e c le a r e s t , m o s t in sp ir a tio n a l w a y ? (1968:623) The ab ove r e a c tio n s to the te r m " g h o stw r ite r s" (p u zz lem e n t, lo g ic a l o b je c tio n , or str o n g d is ta s te ) m u st have begun at le a s t a s e a r ly a s the a d m in istr a tio n of F ra n k lin R o o s e v e lt (s e e C hapter V of th is stu d y , iPp. 1 5 8 -1 8 9 ). P r io r to th at tim e " g h o stw r ite r s" w e re ty p ic a lly i c h a r a c te r iz e d a s sh a d y , su r r e p titio u s c lo s e t fig u r e s w h o se c la n d e s tin e tr a d e th r iv ed on d ecep tio n and a r tific e . S in ce FOR and h is " op en n ess p o licy " r eg a r d in g h is b rain tr u s t o f w r ite r s , the te r m " g h o stw riter" h a s ch an ged (at le a s t in W ashington) to " sp e e c h w r ite r ," w h o se r e s p o n s ib ilitie s a r e p u b licly known and p o litic a lly a c c e p te d . H o w ev er, so m e s c h o la r s s t ill in s is t on u sin g th e dated te r m " g h o st w r ite r ." i j N o n -S p ee ch w r itin g F u n ction of th e D iv isio n i i N ix o n 's w r ite r s , u n lik e w r ite r s fo r K ennedy and F D R , for L ______________________________________________________— . ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 115 e x a m p le , a d v ise the P r e sid e n t on ly on m a tte r s r ela tin g to public c o m m u n ica tio n . They r a r e ly a d v ise h im on m a tte r s co n n e c te d to p o licy d e c is io n s . T his is b e c a u se N ixon sh a rp ly s e p a r a te s h is p o licy a d v is o r s fro m the group that a s s is t s h im in p r e se n tin g , ex p la in in g , or d efen d in g a g iv en p o lic y . T h u s, the c o n su lta tio n r o le of a H en ry K is - • i i sin g e r is a lto g eth er d iffe r e n t fro m that of a Ray P r ic e . j ! U nlike N ix o n 's w r ite r s , h o w e v e r , S o r e n so n w as K en nedy's w r ite r , p o lic y a d v is o r , and p o lic y fo rm u la to r (B o n a fed e, 1972:311), \ but he did not d ea l at a ll w ith the c r e a tio n of c o m p a r a tiv e ly routine ! c o m m u n ic a tio n s su ch a s p r o c la m a tio n s, w ritten public s ta te m e n ts , e x e c u tiv e m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e s s , w ritten public a n n o u n cem en ts, e tc . T h ese n e c e s s a r y d u ties m u st h ave b een handled by p eo p le in oth er d ep a rtm en ts of the E x e c u tiv e B ran ch . R o o s e v e lt u sed a rotatin g sta ff [of s e v e r a l w r it e r s , but lik e K en n ed y 's, R o o s e v e lt ’s w r ite r s a ls o a d v is e d h im on m a tte r s of p o lic y and e x e c u tiv e d e c is io n s . A s M oley o b se r v e d : "He and I argu ed e n d le s s ly o v e r what the su b sta n c e of a S p eech sh ould be" (1939:3 43). Thus R o o s e v e lt, lik e K ennedy, look ed ito h is s p e e c h w r ite r s fo r c o u n se l on m a tte r s o th er than ju st the d raftin g of s p e e c h e s . With N ixon th is w as not the c a s e . Any N ixon o b s e r v e r can r ea d ily d is c o v e r that sp e e c h w r itin g is pot the on ly fu n ction of N ix o n 's w ritin g sta ff. If it w e r e , the n eed fo r i iso la r g e a w ritin g con tin gen t w ould not be n e a r ly a s g r e a t for N ixon as lit i s . A s H uebner noted: 116 P e r h a p s even m o r e in te r e stin g and su r e ly m o re tim e -c o n su m in g is the w ritin g we do w hich a p p ea rs not as an o r a l but a s a w r itte n P r e s id e n tia l e x p r e s s io n . T h ere is fa r m o re of th is m a te r ia l than 1 had p r e v io u sly r e a liz e d . (1970:2) The la r g e w ritin g sta ff d o es not n e c e s s a r ily in d ica te th at N ixon c r e ated ad d itio n a l w ritin g r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s , but on ly that he gath ered th e s e w ritin g ta s k s into one group headed by P r ic e . T h eod ore S o r e n - i so n com m en ted : "We had a v e ry sm a ll sta ff in v o lv ed in w ritin g j | s p e e c h e s . LBJ m o re than doubled it and P r e s id e n t N ixon , 1 su sp e c t, has tr ip le d it" (B on afed e, 1972:311). K en n ed y's w ritin g sta ff w as s m a ll co m p a red to N ix o n 's b e c a u se they w e re only " in volved in w ritingj sp e e c h e s ." N ix o n 's sta ff, on the o th er hand, not only w r ite s sp e e c h e s ! but a s s is t s the P r e s id e n t on o th er E x e c u tiv e co m m u n ica tio n fu n ctio n s, j j N ix o n 's r e d e fin itio n o f the W riting and R e se a r c h D iv isio n in 1 ; 1968 w a s only one of h is a d m in istr a tiv e ch a n g es in the o r g a n iz a tio n a l c h a r t of h is e x e c u tiv e sta ff. He e x e r c is e d h is p r iv ile g e of m aking ch a n g es in the a ssig n m e n t of fu n ction s am ong the m any e x e c u tiv e d ep a rtm en ts and d iv isio n s so that th ey w ould s a tis fy h is c r ite r ia for a c h iev in g m axim u m e ffic ie n c y . O b viou sly he w anted to c e n tr a liz e s e v e r a l ty p e s of w ritin g d u ties into a sin g le a d m in istr a tiv e u n it. In c o n tr a s t to h is im m ed ia te p r e d e c e s s o r s , N ixon com b in ed the s p e e c h - w ritin g d u ties w ith ad d ition al o n e s, in clu d in g the follow in g: 1. E x e c u tiv e m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e ss la y in g out th e d e ta ils of i the A d m in istr a tio n 's le g is la tiv e p r o g r a m s; a m e s s a g e on th e p op u la- tio n e x p lo sio n o r a n ew m a r itim e p o lic y a r e put into fin a l d raft fo rm 117 by N ixon w r ite r s . T h ese w r itte n m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e ss u su a lly o c cu r during J a n u a ry , F e b r u a r y , and M arch , w hen the n ew C o n g r e ss is co m in g in or th e se c o n d s e s s io n of C o n g r e ss is ju st b egin n in g. T h ese th r e e m on th s a r e te r m e d the " m e ssa g e s e a s o n '1 by the w r ite r s b eca u sej of the h eavy w ork load p la c ed on th em during th is tim e p erio d . H uebnei in d ica ted that th e s e w r itte n d ocu m en ts take lo n g e r to w r ite than i i s p e e c h e s b e c a u se th ey o ften have to be n eg o tia ted lik e tr e a tie s w ith j d iffe r e n t p eo p le in the g o v e rn m e n t (B -2 2 9 ). And th e type of w ritin g is s im ila r to th at of C o n g r e ssm e n when th ey p r ep a re b ills to be p resen ted to th e ir le g is la tiv e c o lle a g u e s . 2. P u b lic r e le a s e s by the P r e s id e n t, su ch a s th e an n ou n ce m en t o f a new sp a ce p o licy o r a plan fo r go v ern m en t r e o r g a n iz a tio n a r e a lso handled by the w ritin g sta ff. C on cern in g su ch w r itte n d e c la r a tio n s, H uebner o b se r v e d : . . . one day 1 c a m e fro m a c o n su m e r a ffa ir s m e e tin g . It had been one of th o se m e e tin g s at w h ich tw en ty p eop le fro m ten a g e n c ie s had p r e se n te d fo u r or fiv e sh a rp ly c la s h in g p oin ts of v ie w , w h ere a rg u m en ts w e re m ade in fra g m e n te d fo r m , w h ere the j p ro b lem w as tak en fo r g ra n ted and m o st of the ta lk w as fo c u se d on th e d e ta ils of the so lu tio n . When a c o n se n s u s is r e a c h e d in such a m e e tin g , it ca n n e v e r be e x p r e s s e d too c le a r ly l e s t so m e o n e be m oved to reo p en the q u a r r e l. And then e v e r y o n e le a v e s the m e e t ing and th e w r ite r is a sk ed to turn the r e s u lts o f the d is c u s s io n into a cogen t sta te m e n t fo r the P r e s id e n t's sig n a tu r e . (1970:4) 3. A n n ou ncem ent o f a p p o in tm en ts, b ill sig n in g , and veto m e n - ! | s a g e s , p r o c la m a tio n s , e x e c u tiv e o r d e r s , a sta te m e n t about v e te r a n s , i I a m em oran d u m to the h ead o f a c e r ta in a g e n c y , o r p u b licly r e le a s e d i I _______________________________________ _____ ____________________________________________________ 118 P r e s id e n tia l le t te r s are a ll routed th rou gh the w ritin g sta ff. G avin rem ark ed : "Som ebody thinks it 's im p o rta n t to have not ju st a r eg u la r fo rm le tte r go out but so m eth in g w ith a little s p e c ia l tr e a tm e n t, so I'd d raft the le tte r " (B -2 5 0 ). 4 . P o lic y d ir e c tiv e s to v a r io u s g o v ern m en t d e p a r tm e n ts, in tr o d u c tio n s, p r e fa c e s , o r g e n e r a l r e v is io n s o f g o v ern m en t r ep o rts are a ll p r o c e s s e d by the w r itin g sta ff. A bout th is typ e of a ss ig n m e n t, H uebner exp lain ed : A ty p ic a l a ss ig n m e n t w ill co m e to m e [fro m P r ic e ] th is way: "This d raft fro m th e J u s tic e D ep a rtm en t is th r e e tim e s too long; d e c id e how to cut it." Or: "T his State D ep artm en t te x t is the righ t len gth , but the e m p h a sis is a ll w ron g. S ee what you can do w ith it." (1970:5) 5. F o r e ig n p o lic y c o m m u n iq u es, w r itte n m e s s a g e s to c o n v e n tio n s, and o th er im p o rta n t g a th e r in g s, and p r iv a te c o r r e sp o n d e n c e ! a r e fre q u en tly d ir e c te d to the W hite H ouse sta ff w r ite r s . On ra re o c c a s io n s , the w r ite r s m ig h t do so m e th in g fo r o th er m e m b e r s of the F ir s t F a m ily , C ab in et O ffic e r s , o r m e m b e r s of C o n g r e ss: A lto g e th e r , ou r sta ff th in k s of it s e lf a s the la s t sto p on the a s s e m bly lin e fo r a lm o s t e v er y th in g that the P r e s id e n t m a k e s p u b lic. We apply the fin a l co a t o f paint a s it w e r e , a s a d e c is io n m o v e s out of the W hite H o u se. (H uebn er, 1970:3) In c o m m en tin g on th e N ixon sta ff, S o r e n so n o b ser v ed : "Each P r e s id e n t m u st o r g a n iz e h is sta ff in a m an n er m o st c o m p a tib le to h is p e r so n a l and p r o fe s s io n a l n eed s" (B o n a fed e, 1972:312). A c o m p a r i so n b etw een N ix o n 's w r itin g sta ff and th o s e o f o th e r r e c e n t p r e sid e n ts ^ r e v e a ls one ob viou s d iffe r e n c e : that the N ixon w r ite r s a r e m o r e in v o lv ed in n o n -sp e e c h co m m u n ica tio n than any p r e v io u s p r e sid e n t's w ritin g sta ff (as ev id en ced in th e tr a n sc r ip tio n s of the p e r so n a l in t e r v ie w s con tain ed in A p pendix B ). j ! t R e s e a r c h F u n ctio n o f the D iv isio n i ! {R esea rch for P r e s id e n tia l j . . . i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ I On the m a n u sc r ip t a d d r e s s e s , w hen N ixon is doin g so m uch of j the d ra ftin g h im s e lf, r e s e a r c h m a te r ia l w ill co m e fro m s e v e r a l 1 | s o u r c e s . He m ay r e q u e st m a te r ia ls fro m th o se w r ite r s in w h ose j r i sp e c ia lty a r e a s he is w ritin g . F o r in sta n c e , if he to u c h e s on e c o - [ n o m ic s , he m igh t s o lic it m a te r ia ls fr o m the w r ite r who la st r e s e a r c h e d a sp e e c h in that area; h ea lth c a r e --a n o th e r w r ite r . R e s e a r c h w ill la lso co m e fr o m s p e c ific p o licy a d v is o r s . D epending on the to p ic , I E h rlic h m a n m igh t su b m it m a te r ia ls on d o m e stic is s u e s , S h ultz on m o n e ta ry m a tte r s , B utz on a g r ic u ltu r e , and K is sin g e r on fo r e ig n p o lic y . Of c o u r s e , m o st im p o rta n t s p e e c h e s a r e on su b je c ts w ith w h ich N ixon is a lre a d y fa m ilia r and on w hich p o lic y h a s b een p r e v io u sly d e ter m in e d . The am ount of r e s e a r c h req u ire d , th e r e fo r e , is often lim ite d to v e r y s p e c if ic , fa c tu a l, s t a t is t ic a l m a te r ia l. The r e s e a r c h sta ff of the W riting and R e s e a r c h D iv isio n h ead ed ■by B e llin g e r m a in ta in s a sp e e c h filin g s y s te m on e v e r y sp e e c h o r pub lic ap p ea ra n ce by the P r e s id e n t w h ere he m a k es any kind of sta te m e n t. 120 T his s y s te m c la s s i f ie s sp e e c h e s under g u id e lin e s su ch a s c ity , date ! d e liv e r e d , is s u e s c o v e r e d , and su g g e s te d c o u r s e s of a ctio n . In a d d i tio n , Index of th e P r e s id e n tia l D o cu m en ts c a ta lo g u e s e v er y th in g the P r e s id e n t s a y s , p la c e s he sp o k e , what he sa id , r e a c tio n s , e tc . A ls o , ! the r e s e a r c h sta ff h a s its own c o m p u te r r e tr ie v a l s y s te m to aid in the j t c o lle c tio n and d is se m in a tio n of in fo rm a tio n fo r P r e s id e n tia l s t a t e - I m en ts or s p e e c h e s . i I A s p e c ia l c o lle c tio n of books and p a p ers d ea lin g w ith th e liv e s of p r e v io u s A m e r ic a n p r e sid e n ts or s ta te s m e n , fo r e ig n d ig n ita r ie s , and p o litic a l le a d e r s , or o th er n otab le w orld fig u r e s lik e ly to in flu e n c e P r e s id e n tia l thought o r a c tio n is ca ta lo g u ed by the r e s e a r c h sta ff. T his is a lso c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d w ith the L ib r a ry of C o n g r e ss fo r e x panded c o v e r a g e . G avin , in r e s e a r c h in g fo r N ixon , m ig h t go to the | r e s e a r c h sta ff and, w anting so m e th in g on T h om as J e ffe r s o n , a sk for so m e m a te r ia ls on h is life (B -2 4 9 ). He w ould then sim p ly go through the books u n til he found a q u ote, a n e c d o te , o r o th e r p ie c e of m a te r ia l he thought the P r e s id e n t cou ld u s e . He w ould then cop y it and send it to N ixon w ith s u g g e s tio n s on how it m ig h t a p p ro p ria te ly fit into the sp e e c h the P r e s id e n t w as co n tem p la tin g . N ixon h a s a lw a y s lik ed to c ite illu s tr a tio n s and a n e c d o te s in h is ispeak in g ( P r ic e , B -2 1 1 ). C om ing up w ith m a te r ia l the P r e s id e n t I jlik es, h o w e v e r , h as a lw a y s b een a r e s e a r c h p r o b lem . G avin, fo r j I j e x a m p le , did not e v e r c o lle c t a n e c d o tes: 121 It's a ch an cey b u sin e ss . Y ou're lim ite d in your an ecd o tes to the p e rso n for whom you are w orking. T h ere are very fo lk sy , hom ey an ecd otes w hich m aybe S en ators can u se but the P r e sid e n t would n ev er u se th em . . . . So I don't think that it is p o ssib le to c o lle c t them . I have even gone so fa r as to look at an en cy clo p ed ia of an ecd otes but it ju st didn't w o r k --fo r m e anyw ay. (B -2 5 4 ) When a sp e e c h is fo rth co m in g , N ixon w ill k eep in m ind what he w ants to sa y and if an in cid en t o c c u r s w hich can be m agn ified in a j i sp ee ch , N ixon w ill rem em b er it. F or e x a m p le, co n cern in g the "Tanyaj illu str a tio n ," P r ic e w as in R u ssia with N ixon when the id ea f ir s t cam e to h im . He had gone one m orn in g to a c e m e te r y to lay a w reath at the m onum ent for the people who died in the s ie g e of L eningrad in W orld War II. At the c e m e te r y w as a little d isp la y , a p ic tu r e, and so m e p ages fro m the d iary of Tanya S avach iva. The guide exp lain ed the sig n ific a n c e of th e se ite m s to the P r e sid e n t, who w as quite m oved . |N ixon w ent to a sta te dinner that night and when to a sts w e re o ffer ed , | h is w as one of the m o st b eautiful s p e e c h e s P r ic e had e v e r heard him | d eliv er: He bu ilt up to Tanya and w orked h er in as a c lo s e to h is to a st. L ater I w as help in g him w ith the sp ee ch to the R u ssia n people on TV and he ask ed m e to get the e x tr a fa c ts that I could on Tanya sin c e he w anted to u se her again in th is sp e e c h . And he did. I think he u sed h er a lso in h is sp ee ch to the n ext s e s s io n of C o n g ress when he ca m e back and he a lso u sed h er in the M iam i sp ee ch . That w as ju st an exam p le of som eth in g that he ju st happened to s e e that he turned around and u sed in a sp e e c h . ( P r ic e , B -2 1 2 ) Much of the an ecd o ta l r e se a r c h for s p e e c h e s , then, c o m e s from N ixon ih im se lf. B eing a volum inou s r e a d e r , he p ick s up a lo t of h is own i l - 1 j 1 lu str a tio n s from h isto r y and h is to r ic a l biograph y. L eza r rem ark ed 122 that la tely Nixon had been reading B la k e 's D is r a e li: "The oth er day he w as talking about the reo rg a n iza tio n of the W hite H ouse sta ff and ju st hit us w ith an anecdote from B la k e 's D is r a e li that w as bu ried s o m e w h ere in its 900 pages" (B -2 9 1 ). About half the illu str a tio n s u sed by N ixon , h ow ever, com e fro m h is w r ite r s (P r ic e , B -2 1 2 ). As G avin noted: "I can give him six te e n a n ecd o tes w hich he m ight look at and c o m p lete ly r e je c t. When 'he s e e s the one he w ants th at's the one he wants and he u s e s it" (B - 2 53). The P r e sid e n t, th en , often tak es su g g ested an ecd otes fro m h is w r ite r s but adapts them to the sp eak ing o c c a sio n and the sp e c ific i audienc e . R e se a r c h fo r N on- S p eech w ritin g T ask s J i M ost of the r e s e a r c h conducted for n o n -sp ee ch w r itin g ta sk s is I handled by the p a rticu la r p erso n a ssig n e d the w ritin g r e sp o n sib ility . If M cD onald, for e x a m p le, w e re ask ed to draft the P r e sid e n t's annual V eteran s Day p ro cla m a tio n , m uch of h is r e s e a r c h tim e would probably be taken up in reading te x ts of p ast V eteran s Day p ro cla m a tio n s. W here the P r e sid e n t is ex p ected annually to p ro cla im so m e ev en t, c o p ie s of a ll a v a ila b le p a st p r e sid e n tia l p ro cla m a tio n s are kep t in a la rg e s e r ie s of f ile s in A n d rew s' recep tio n a r e a . T heir a v a ila b ility | p erm its w r ite r s im m ed ia te a c c e s s and co n sta n t u se . The f ile s are i [catalogu ed under th eir ap p rop riate headin gs: e . g. , V etera n s D ay, Boy Scou t D ay, S t. P a tr ic k 's D ay, e tc . M uch of the r e s e a r c h c h a lle n g e c o n s is t s of find in g f r e s h , d if fe r e n t, or unique w ays of sta tin g what h as a lre a d y been sa id annually for the p a st s e v e r a l y e a r s . A w r ite r , w orking on the P r e s id e n t's Boy Scout Day p r o c la m a tio n , m igh t r e s e a r c h by read in g the h is to r y of sc o u tin g , e d ito r ia ls , or a r tic le s on a s p e c ts o f sc o u tin g , v isitin g a Scout c o u r t of h o n o r, troop m e e tin g , c a m p s it e , or in te r v ie w in g a S cout. The r e s e a r c h ta sk , in o th er w o r d s, is to u n co v er d iffe r e n t w ays to e x p r e s s P r e s id e n tia l r e c o g n itio n fo r a p a r tic u la r day. O nce the r e s e a r c h haB b een c o m p le te d , the p r o c la m a tio n can be w r itten . But o b v io u sly the r e s e a r c h a s p e c t of w r itte n P r e s id e n tia l sta te m e n ts is by fa r th e m o st tim e -c o n su m in g p art of the w ritin g c h o r e . S p ee c h w r itin g F u n ction o f the D iv isio n O v era ll V iew o f P r o c e d u r e s T h ere is no sim p le jo b p r o file fo r any s p e e c h w r it e r - - le t a lon e a N ixon sp e e c h w r ite r . H is w ork d ep en d s e n tir e ly on h is e m p lo y e r . P r e s id e n t J o h n so n 's w r ite r s , fo r e x a m p le , w ould p r ep a re fu ll read in g te x ts fo r a lm o st e v e r y public sp eak in g o c c a s io n , fo r m a l o r in fo r m a l, w h eth er it w as in tro d u cin g a new a p p o in tee, g r e e tin g a fo r e ig n le a d e r , iaw arding a m e d a l, o r a d d r e ss in g a co n v en tio n . And Joh n son u su a lly read fr o m th o se te x ts (H u eb n er, 1970:2). N ix o n 's w r ite r s do th e sa m e thin g fo r h im , but w ith no e x p e c ta tio n w h a tev er that th e r e m a r k s w ill 124 i be rea d as w r itten . N ixon d is lik e s sp eak in g fro m m a n u sc r ip ts and d o es s o , th e r e fo r e , only on th e m o st fo r m a l of o c c a a s io n s - -a t e l e v isio n sp e e c h on V ietn a m , a S tate of the U nion m e s s a g e , an in au gu ral a d d r e s s , e tc . In a ll oth er c a s e s , h is sp ea k in g is w hat he c a lls "off the cuff" and d r a fts p rep a red for h im by h is w r ite r s s e r v e on ly a s sug-j I i g e s tio n s fro m w hich h is r e m a r k s m ay be taken: What we tr y to g iv e the P r e s id e n t, of c o u r s e , a re not the p r e d ic t able w o rd s and s e n te n c e s w h ich we know he w ould think of anyw ay. What he w ants fr o m us a r e what he c a lls "nuggets": p a r a b le s, a n e c d o te s , h u m o r, s lo g a n s , illu s tr a tio n s , s t a t is t ic s , q u o ta tio n s, sp e c ific r e fe r e n c e s to h is g u e st or h is a u d ie n c e , anything w h ich I w ill g iv e the sp e e c h punch and c o lo r . (H u eb n er, 1970:2) H a rry T ru m an , in d is c u s s in g h is s p e e c h w r it e r s , in d ic a ted that " th eir fun ction w as to aid in ga th erin g m a te r ia l and putting s p e e c h e s to g eth er" (W hite and H e n d e r lid e r , 1954:38). E ise n h o w e r , h o w e v e r , w anted h is w r ite r s to take h is thoughts and g e n e r a l p r in c ip le s and put ith em into an a ctu a l sp e e c h te x t so a ll he had to do w as rea d fr o m it i (F u e s s , 1958:45), i K ennedy " a lm o st a lw a y s s e r v e d a s an o u tlin e r who s u g g e s te d ig u id e lin e s w h ich an a s s is ta n t u sed in w ritin g a f ir s t d raft." M o r e o v e r , K ennedy u su a lly a cted a s both e d ito r and c o lla b o r a to r ; turnin g up th o u g h ts, r e v is in g a r g u m e n ts , e lim in a tin g w o r d s , s e n te n c e s , and p a r a g r a p h s, and in se r tin g o th e r s . S o m e tim e s , though not o ften , .K en nedy a ls o a ssu m e d the ta sk of c r e a to r , both c o n c e iv in g and p h r a s - I j : ing the sp e e c h (S o r en so n , 1966:107). 125 C o n cern in g how N ixon c o m m e n c e s h is sp e e c h p rep a ra tio n ta sk , P r ic e said : " T h ere r e a lly is no p a ttern a s to how the P r e s id e n t u n d e r ta k e s the in itia tio n of a sp eech " (B -2 0 8 ). The w r ite r N ixon s e le c t s to w ork w ith h im , fo r e x a m p le , u su a lly a ffe c ts the d ra ftin g ap p roach j tak en . If he w as w ork in g w ith P r ic e o r an oth er fr o n t-lin e w r ite r , the i p r o c e s s w ould be d iffe r e n t fr o m that u se d w ith a sta ff w r ite r . The j l fo llo w in g ty p ify s e v e r a l a p p ro a c h e s N ixon h as ta k en w ith h is c h ie f I w r ite r s in in itia tin g a draft: j i 1. P r ic e m igh t be ta lk in g w ith the P r e s id e n t and su d d en ly an j id ea fo r an u p com in g sp e e c h w ill o c c u r to N ixon. H e w ill g iv e th is id e a to P r ic e fo r fu rth er d e v e lo p m en t, who w ill then e ith e r take the P r e s id e n t ’s id ea and w ork on it h im s e lf or a s s ig n the ta s k to anoth er : w r ite r . | 2. N ixon m ay sen d a m em o to a w r ite r about an u p com in g sp e e c h , in clu d in g a rough o u tlin e . The P r e s id e n t m ay have c le a r in h is m ind w hat he w ants to sa y o r he m ay sim p ly be m in d fu l of a sp e a k ing o c c a s io n . E ith e r w ay, the w r ite r s han d le the d e v e lo p m en t of the I in itia l d ra ft. 3. N ixon h a s se n t sp e e c h d ir e c tiv e s to d iffe r e n t w r ite r s through h is C h ief o f S ta ff, H. R . (B ob) H ald em an , o r on m a tte r s of ;d o m e stic im p o r ta n c e , th rou gh John E h rlic h m a n , o r on fo r e ig n p o lic y i through K is s in g e r and the N a tio n a l S e c u r ity C ou n cil. 4 . O c c a s io n a lly , though r a r e ly , N ixon w ill tele p h o n e a w r ite r 126 ju st to talk about upcom ing s p e e c h e s , wanting nothing m o re than a g e n e ra l exch an ge of id ea s on the sp e e c h e s and how they can be m o re e ffe c tiv e ly p rep ared . U nlike N ixon, K ennedy r e lie d h ea v ily on the s e r v ic e s of one w r ite r --T e d S orenson : In the end 1 found m y s e lf rely in g m o re and m o re on S o ren so n , who w as with m e on the cam p aign tou r and who, th e r e fo r e , could r ea c t to and r e fle c t u p -to -th e -m in u te ta c tic a l sh ifts in our b asic p o licy . (N ixon , 1962:407) N ixon seld o m su m m on s a sta ff w riter to the O val O ffice to in itia te a fir s t draft (A n d rew s, B -2 7 2 ). B e c a u se the p r e sid e n tia l sch ed u lin g p r o c e s s is so e la b o r a te , sp eak ing en g a g em en ts seld o m com e as a su r p r ise to the w r ite r s . T hus, the n e c e s s ity of fa c e -to - fa ce co n su lta tio n for extend ed p erio d s is e lim in a te d , or at le a s t r e duced to a m in im u m . H ow ever, when a d e c is io n is m ade that the P r e sid e n t is going to sp eak on a g iv en o c c a sio n , s e v e r a l thin gs o ccu r (H uebner, B -2 2 6): 1. O rd ers go out to the advance m en to s e t up the speak ing situ ation . 2. A p prop riate d e ta ils go out to the P r e s s O ffice to announce that the sp ee ch is to be given . 3. An in stru ctio n sh e e t c o m e s fro m H ald em an 's o ffice to the | sp eech w ritin g sta ff, sayin g som eth in g lik e "the P r e sid e n t w ill appear on th is o c c a sio n in th is co n tex t and your o ffic e is r e sp o n sib le fo r p r e - paring the m a te r ia l fo r that .occasion."_________ _______________________ 127 4 . U su a lly a d e ter m in a tio n is m ad e fr o m the H ald em an d ir e c tiv e a s to w h eth er the w r itin g sta ff w ill p ro v id e N ixon w ith a fo r m a l, str u c tu r e d te x t o r w h eth er th e ir m a te r ia ls w ill take the fo rm of in fo r m a l " r e m a r k s." If th ey a r e to be " r e m a r k s," th en the m a te r ia ls w ill sim p ly be a lo o s e se q u e n c e of ite m s su g g e stin g th ou gh ts to N ixon ra th er than fu lly w r itte n -o u t p ara g ra p h s and p a g e s. The w ritin g a ss ig n m e n ts fo r N ixon a r e h an d led , fo r the m o st part and w ith few e x c e p tio n s , by one w r ite r w ith little in te r -w r ite r c o lla b o r a tio n . P r ic e u s u a lly e d its what th e w r ite r s do, but a s fa r as tea m in g up on s p e e c h e s lik e R o sen m a n and h is c o lle a g u e s did fo r F D R , it ju st d o es not o c c u r am ong the N ixon w r ite r s (A n d rew s, B -2 7 2 ). L e za r in d ic a ted that he w as h ir e d to w ork c lo s e ly w ith P r ic e on s p e c ific id e a s: I su p p o se on e of the m a in th in g s I w as h ir ed fo r w a sn 't ju st the w ritin g but it w as a lso a s an id e a kind of p e r so n . I k ick around id e a s a lot; not ju st on th is sta ff but in th e W hite H o u se g e n e r a lly . What I s p e c ia liz e d in , p h ilo so p h y , w as try in g to find the u n d e r ly in g a ssu m p tio n s and p r e su m p tio n s in h er en t in any w ay of look in g at a p ro b lem . A s a r e s u lt, I do a lo t o f th at in ju st g e n e r a l te r m s try in g to q u e stio n w hat b ia s e s a r e im p lic it w ithin sta tin g any one | p a r tic u la r thin g o r in goin g in one p a r tic u la r d ir e c tio n . 1 do an aw ful lo t o f that kind o f th in g. (B -3 0 1 , B -3 0 2 ) M cD onald d e s c r ib e d th e W riting and R e s e a r c h D iv is io n as a n alogou s to a law fir m in w h ich a ll the w r ite r s a r e p a r tn e r s , but handle th e ir ow n c a s e s (B -3 1 0 ). F o r e x a m p le , B uchanan r e c a lle d an in cid en t in the 1968 ca m p a ig n c o n c e r n in g a p h ra se w h ich N ixon u se d lover and o v e r : "N o, m y fe llo w c it iz e n s , w e 'r e not goin g to le t th em I 128 Imake a doorm at out of the A m e rica n fla g ! " (Honan, 1969:21). W hile the lin e w as con ced ed to be a bit str a in e d , it n e v e r th e le s s brought out the d e sir e d audience a p p la u se, so N ixon u sed it at a lm o st e v er y sp ea k ing o c c a sio n . H ow ever, a tim e ca m e w hen the w r ite r s could no lo n g er i r e p r e ss th e ir e m b a r r a ssm e n t, so an in -g ro u p joke d evelop ed . F or | in sta n c e , Buchanan c o m e s up to P r ic e and sa y s with m ock urgency: "H ey, R ay. T h ey've done it again ! " "Done w hat?" a sk s P r ic e . "In Tunis th is tim e . T h ey've ju st m ade another doorm at out of an A m e r - | j ica n fla g ! " P r ic e , tryin g to sound s e r io u s , r e p lie s , "I'll get righ t j I o v er th e r e , P at." The gag w ent on so lon g, and se e m e d so funny at thej tim e , that Buchanan c o n sid e r e d having a m in ia tu re A m erica n fla g made up to look lik e a d oorm at, as an in s id e r s ' sou ven ir of the 1968 c a m paign. It w as to be the eq u ivalen t of the P T -b o a t tie pin w orn by top sta ff v etera n s of the I960 K ennedy cam p aign , but som eh ow the id ea n e v e r got p ast the talking sta g e . S ch leB in ger r e c a lle d that K ennedy's sp e e c h p rep aration s e s sio n s o c cu rr ed in another way: He would begin w ork on a sp eech by c a llin g in the w r ite r and sk etch in g out h is id e a s. When the o c c a sio n w as s e r io u s , he would read the d raft with in ten se c a r e , sc r ib b le ille g ib ly on the m a rg in and then go o v er the r e su lt w ith the w r ite r . . . . He w as an e x c e lle n t e d ito r , sk ille d at turning up thoughts and elim in a tin g v erb a l e x c e s s . A bove a ll, he loved pungent e x p r e s s io n s . (1965:690) ' W hile th ere is little su b ject m a tter sp e c ia liz a tio n am ong jN ixon’s w r ite r s , A ndrew s noted that fro m tim e to tim e p r o je c ts fe ll 129 in to a p a ttern w h ere the w r ite r who w ork ed on a c e r ta in su b je ct la s t tim e around w ork ed on it th is tim e around (B -2 7 2 ). T h is flo w of a ss ig n m e n ts r e la te d not on ly to s p e e c h e s , but a ls o to o th e r m e s s a g e s , both o r a l and w r itte n , for w hich the P r e s id e n t w as r e s p o n s ib le . P r ic e stated : V ery o ften he [N ixon] w ill h a v e a p a r tic u la r w r ite r in m ind that he w an ts to have w ork w ith h im on a p a r tic u la r sp e e c h b e c a u s e , know ing the stro n g and w eak p oin ts of e a ch w r ite r , th e ir s ty le and e v er y th in g e l s e , fo r one sp e e c h h e 'll w ant the kind of touch that one w r ite r w ould b rin g to it and on an oth er sp e e c h h e 'll w ant the kind o f touch an oth er w r ite r w ould b rin g . S o m e tim e s he w ill pick one out h im s e lf and o th e r tim e s I'll ju s t a s s ig n th em out. ( B -2 I4 ) An im p ortan t part of P r ic e 's job is to know the r e s p e c tiv e str e n g th s and w e a k n e s s e s of e a ch w r ite r and to d is p e n se a ss ig n m e n ts a c c o r d in g ly . One w r ite r m igh t h a v e a fla ir for the lite r a r y w h ile another a penchan t fo r th e str a ig h tfo rw a rd fa s t punch. H uebner sta ted that the w r ite r s w ere a ll " s p e c ia lis ts in g e n e r a liz in g , and th a t's about all" (B -2 3 S ). G avin n oted , h o w e v e r , that "that d o e sn 't n e c e s s a r ily m ean that the thin g 1 had b een w orking w ith w a s n ’t goin g to be w orked on by som eb od y e ls e " (B -2 5 6 ) . P r ic e fe lt that th e P r e sid e n t: . . . g e n e r a lly p r e fe r s m o r e r a th er than l e s s c o n su lta tio n so th at you draw in a b r o a d e r sp e c tr u m of id e a s and tou ch b a se w ith p eop le w ith d iffe r e n t p oin ts of v ie w and who m ay h a v e d iffe r e n t k in d s of in s ig h ts a s he lik e s to do h im se lf; not on ly on s p e e c h e s but w ith e v er y th in g . H is ap p roach to a lo t of p o lic y th in gs is r e a lly to tr y and sound out p eo p le who w ill lo o k at th in g s w ith d if fe r e n t p e r s p e c tiv e s and g e t th e ir p e r s p e c tiv e s on it b e fo r e he m a k e s up h is ow n m in d . (B -2 1 6 ) One a s p e c t of th e w ritin g r e s p o n s ib ility not g iv en m uch 130 ^ [ i atten tion (probab ly b e c a u se m o st o f th e in fo rm a tio n c o m e s fr o m the w r ite r s and not fro m the P r e s id e n t h im se lf) is the tim e and sp eed fa cto r in v o lv ed in N ix o n 's d raftin g p r o c e s s . H uebner r e c a lle d : I r e m e m b e r that one of the f ir s t tim e s I m et M r. N ixon , w hen he w as p r a c tic in g law in New Y ork, he talk ed about s p e e c h w r ite r s i and about the d ile m m a th ey a lw a y s p r e se n te d fo r h im . Your v ery b e st w r it e r s , he s a i d - - s c h o la r s , n o v e lis t s , and s u c h --th e m en and w om en who w e r e m o st s e n s itiv e to la n g u a g e, the p eop le you w ould m o st lik e to h ave w r itin g for y o u , o ften m ad e th e p o o r e st ! sp e e c h w r ite r s sim p ly b e c a u se th ey could n ev er fin d th e righ t t w o rd s fa s t en ou gh . (1970:3) i H uebner r e m e m b e r e d the tim e when a c a ll c a m e to h im that c e r ta in S enate le a d e r s had ju s t announced that th ey w ould not a ct on s e le c t iv e s e r v ic e r e fo r m at that p a r ticu la r tim e . By the end of the p r e s s b r ie f in g , H u ebn er w as told: . . . ju s t a few m in u te s fr o m now , w e want to hand out a r e a c tio n sta te m e n t fr o m the P r e s id e n t, refu tin g the arg u m en ts th ey g iv e fo r th e ir d e c is io n and c a llin g on th em to r e c o n s id e r . You h ave han d led th is is s u e b e fo r e . Go to it. (1970:3) The q u estio n of w h eth er the P r e s id e n t had an o c c a s io n to sp ea k and th en found a m e s s a g e o r w h eth er he had a d e s ir e to p ersu a d e on a p a r tic u la r su b je c t and th en found an o c c a s io n , brought m ix ed r e a c tio n s fr o m h is w r ite r s . G avin in d ica ted that m any P r e s id e n tia l p r o c e d u r e s w e re fr o z e n . M a tters su ch a s p r o c la m a tio n s , State o f the U nion a d d r e s s e s , m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e s s , and th e lik e w ere o c c a s io n s at w hich th e P r e s id e n t sim p ly had to resp o n d . But th e re w e r e o th er o c c a s io n s jw here the su b je c t d icta ted that the P r e s id e n t sp ea k . F or e x a m p le , iNixon m igh t want to m ak e a m a jo r a d d r e ss on drug c o n tr o l, and, 131 b e c a u se a su ita b le fo ru m w as not on the agen d a in the n ex t few w e e k s, a v e h ic le had to be lo c a te d . T h ere h a v e b een r a re o c c a s io n s w h ere the W hite H ou se had to s o lic it a sp ea k in g in v ita tio n in o r d e r to h ave the m o st e x p e d itio u s foru m th rou gh w h ich to a d d r e ss a c e r ta in to p ic . j L e z a r in d ic a ted that both the o c c a s io n and the top ic in flu en ce the P r e s id e n t's d e c is io n to sp ea k . H o w e v e r , N ixon is c a r e fu l in 1 s e le c tin g on ly th e m o st ap p ro p ria te p e r s u a s iv e situ a tio n s and to p ic s: j You sa w th is du rin g the ca m p a ig n if you w atch ed c lo s e ly ; a v ery c a r e fu lly , s k illfu lly m an aged e ffo r t of p e r su a s io n on know ing w hen to talk and w hen not to ta lk . . . . O b v io u sly , th e r e a r e c e r ta in o c c a s io n s w hen h e h a s to sp eak ; h is in a u g u ra l a d d r e s s , fo r e x a m - j p ie , . . . and th ey a r e la r g e ly p r e s c r ib e d . But in te r m s of when he g o e s out and ju st sp e a k s at a d in n er o r so m e th in g lik e th a t, he p ic k s and c h o o s e s p retty c a r e fu lly . (B -3 0 3 ) I 2 I The P r e s id e n t's c h o ic e of the m o st a p p ro p ria te o c c a s io n fo r i d is c u s s in g a s p e c ific is s u e is b a sed on a v a r ie ty o f c r it e r ia . M cD on - j aid a r g u ed , fo r e x a m p le , th at the n o tio n that h ea lth p r o g r a m s should j ! a lw a y s be u n v e ile d a t a d o c to r s ' co n v en tio n w a s a r a th er ou td ated and o ld -fa sh io n e d id e a b e c a u se the g r e a t e s t foru m th e P r e s id e n t h as is the W hite H ouse and no o c c a s io n ca n p r e -e m p t p r e se n tin g a p ro g ra m fro m the O val O ffice (B -3 1 4 ). In fa c t, M cD onald fe lt that w hen th e P r e s i den t w en t out of tow n , th e p r e s s c o v e r a g e drop p ed b e c a u se ". . . a ll th e g r e a t r e p o r te r s a r e h e r e in W ashington" and w hen the P r e s id e n t le a v e s , so m e o f th em do not a cco m p a n y h im and, c o n se q u e n tly , the 1 co v e ra g e he g e ts is su b sta n d a rd . "They don 't g e t th e sig n ific a n c e of j I w hat it is th e P r e s id e n t is sa y in g and how th at is d iffe r e n t fr o m what he has sa id in the p ast" (B -3 1 4 ). A n d rew s noted that s o m e tim e s the fo ru m n a tu ra lly d ic ta ted or co in cid e d w ith the top ic: F o r in s ta n c e , I w ork ed on the P r e s id e n t's sp e e c h w hen he j a d d r e ss e d the N ation al C ath olic E d u cation A s s o c ia tio n C on ven tion > at P h ila d e lp h ia la s t A p ril [1 9 7 2 ], in w h ich he u sed th is o c c a s io n to: (1) plug h is b u sin g p r o p o sa ls w h ich he r e c e n tly se n t to C on - j g r e s s ; and (2 ) talk about aid to n o n -p u b lic s c h o o ls . W ell, it w as a n a tu ra l foru m to do both o f th o se th in gs and both w e re fron t j b u rn er to p ic s at the tim e and so I think th ey in v ited h im . (B -2 7 3 ) U su a lly , of c o u r s e , b e c a u se th e P r e s id e n t is lit e r a lly d elu ged with h u n d red s of sp ea k in g r e q u e sts e a ch w e ek , the p ro b lem is sim p ly to c h o o se the m o s t ap p ro p ria te fo ru m . E x te m p o ra n eo u s S p e e c h e s N ixon , u n lik e so m e o th er p r e s id e n ts , d o es not o ften d e liv e r ,m em o r ize d s p e e c h e s o r sp e e c h e s rea d fro m m a n u sc r ip t. It is d if f i c u lt to know how m uch th is is due to h is d e s ir e to str ik e a c o n tr a st w ith h is p r e d e c e s s o r , who rea d s p e e c h e s q u ite o ften , u sed a t e l e p r o m p te r , and su rro u n d ed h im s e lf w ith a ll the p a r a p h er n a lia of m o d ern pu blic o r a to r y . N ixon in ste a d p r e fe r s to co m e a c r o s s a s th e old c o lle g e d eb a ter d isd a in in g p r o p s, tr u stin g in m e m o r y , u sin g a la w y e r -lik e s e n s e of o r g a n iz a tio n and a n a tiv e w it. O c c a sio n a lly , he u s e s a note c a r d o r tw o, but th is is an in freq u en t o c c u r r e n c e b e c a u se he h a te s to look c o n tr iv e d . A ls o , N ixon i s not at h is b e s t w hen r e a d ing s p e e c h e s , so the public h e a r s v e r y little by w ay o f fo r m a l sp ea k in g fr o m h im .---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133 D e sp ite the a b se n c e of p r o p s, N ixon is quite cap ab le of p r e sen tin g c o m p lic a te d m a te r ia l in a s y s te m a tic and e a s ily u n d erstood form ; a r a r e a b ility in p r e sid e n ts w h ich p robab ly s te m s fro m N ix o n 's e a r ly debate a c tiv itie s , h is le g a l tr a in in g , and h is m any y e a r s of p o litic a l ca m p a ig n in g . W hile it is known that he lik e s to o u tlin e h is thoughts on a y e llo w le g a l pad, l e s s w e ll know n iB the fa ct that h is | e n tir e m ind s e e m s to be a y e llo w le g a l pad r e p le te w ith R om an n u - j i m e r a ls , in d en ted "A 's" and su b p o in ts. A s he sp e a k s , he tic k s off h is poin ts w ith h is fin g e r s u n til he runs out of p oin ts a n d /o r fin g e r s . B e c a u se 75 to 80 p e r ce n t of N ix o n 's sp eak in g is e x te m p o r a n e ou s (H u eb n er, B -2 3 0 ), h is w r ite r s h ave e v o lv e d a fo rm a t d e sig n e d to p r e p a r e h im fo r th e se o c c a s io n s by g iv in g h im so m e sp e e c h id e a s. T h is fo rm a t u su a lly in c lu d e s two ite m s: 1. A "fact sh eet" con tain in g e v er y th in g that: , a. is know n about the ev en t that w ould be h elp fu l b. is known about the o r g a n iza tio n c . is know n about who is going to be th ere d. h as b een sa id b efo re (by N ixon) r e la te d to the e v en t, the o r g a n iz a tio n , o r the p eo p le in v o lv ed . 2. " S u ggested r e m a r k s," w h ich a r e little p a r a g r a p h s, s m a ll Ibits and p ie c e s o f s u g g e s tio n s , th e m e s , p h r a s e s , o r w o rd s. Such r e m a rk s u su a lly take a m en u fo r m fr o m w hich N ixon , in fo rm u la tin g h is s p e e c h , m a y c h o o s e . H e ty p ic a lly w ill sc a n a w r ite r 's fou r o r fiv e 134 p a g es of " su g g e sted r e m a r k s," s e le c tin g ite m s w hich h ave p a r ticu la r ap p eal. They m igh t be sh o r t p u n c h lin e s, a litt le jok e o r p arab le illu s tr a tin g a p oin t, a s t a t is t ic , h is to r ic a l a n e c d o te , o r ju s t a r e f e r en ce to h is to r y . H uebner rem ark ed : . . . if h e [N ixon ] is to a stin g P r im e M in iste r H eath w e m ig h t s u g g e s t a little s to r y about so m e th in g th at happened to H eath w hen he w as a boy or a little n ote to the e ffe c t th at both H eath and N ixon play the piano o r a quote fr o m C h u r ch ill about B r itis h -A m e r ic a n fr ie n d sh ip o r so m e r e fe r e n c e to the la s t tim e N ixon w as in j E n glan d. (B -2 3 1 ) j A w r ite r m igh t r e q u ir e th r e e d ays to put th e " rem a rk s" m en u to g eth er so that N ixon , g la n cin g down the s h e e ts , can q u ick ly s e le c t a few ite m s that h e th in k s m ig h t be u se fu l. N ixon m a k e s good u s e of the fa ct sh eet: He m in e s little n u g g ets of in fo rm a tio n out of th at, but 95 p e r c e n t of a ll the public sp ea k in g he d o e s is w h ere he w ill a b so rb that I m a te r ia l ahead of tim e , la y it a s id e , c o m e out w ithout a n o te , a ; c a r d , a p ie c e of paper or anything and ju st stan d up th e r e and j ta lk . It's v e ry im p r e s s iv e to the a u d ien ce and im p r e s s iv e e v en to u s , how good he i s . (A n d rew s, B -2 7 9 ) U n lik e C h u r c h ill, fo r e x a m p le , N ixon d o e s not spend s e v e r a l idays in is o la te d s e c lu s io n p r io r to e a c h of h is a d d r e s s e s . That is not to sa y that N ixon is not e x tr e m e ly c a r e fu l w ith h is s p e e c h e s , but sin c e m o st o f h is public a d d r e s s e s a re e x te m p o r a n e o u s ra th er than m a n u s c r ip t s p e e c h e s , a tre m en d o u s am ount of what he s a y s is what L e za r c a lls "talking on th e b a lls of h is feet" (B -2 9 1 ). W r ite rs sim p ly su b m it [thoughts, id e a s , o r b r ie f p a ra g ra p h s w h ich N ixon lo o k s at and w hich i j h o p efu lly s tim u la te h im to a d d itio n a l thought. 135 When N ixon sp e a k s e x te m p o r a n e o u sly , it is a lm o st a lw a y s w ith ou t n o te s . P r ic e e x p r e s s e d th a t N ixon h a s an e x tr a o rd in a r y a b ility to o r g a n iz e w hich c a r r ie s o v e r into the d e liv e r y of an e x te m p o r a n e o u s i sp eech : ! A s a r u le of thum b if th ey w e re r e a lly counted up. I think that about n in ete en out of tw enty o f h is pu blic s p e e c h e s are w ithout n o te s. H e 'll fix in h is m ind e s s e n t ia lly w hat he w ants to s a y . th e j p oin ts he w ants to m a k e, and so m e of the lin e s he w ants to u s e . ! (B -2 1 1 ) , j J a m e s K eogh , o n e -tim e d ir e c to r of the W riting and R e s e a r c h D iv isio n | and fo r m e r N ixon s p e e c h w r ite r , in d ic a ted that the " P r e sid e n t is p ro b - > ab ly the on ly m an in public life w ho, in an e x te m p o r a n e o u s sp e e c h , can get h is v erb a g r e e m e n ts c o r r e c t" (G avin , B -2 5 8 ). G avin r e m a rk ed that th e " P r e sid e n t is an u n p a r a lle le d e x te m p o r a n e o u s sp e a k e r . He is e x c e lle n t n ex t to any . . . . " He w en t on: One of the str a n g e th in g s 1 have n e v e r b een ab le to u n d ersta n d is why he [N ixon ] is n 't g iv en m o r e c r e d it fo r th at. It's a r a r e a r t. T here a r e p eo p le who can do the sa m e sp e e c h o v e r and o v e r again w ithout n o te s o n ce it's m e m o r iz e d . . . but in o r d e r to g e t up b e fo r e a group of a th ou san d or se v e n hundred p eop le o r so m e th in g lik e th at and "wing" an aw ful lo t of it is an a r t and he can do it. (B -2 5 9 ) The P r e s id e n t rea d s 100 p e r c e n t of h is m a n u sc rip t s p e e c h e s (G avin, B -2 5 7 ), but h is e x te m p o r a n e o u s r e m a r k s can go an yw h ere fr o m 10 p e r c e n t up to 90 p e r c e n t e x te m p o r a n e o u s. G avin , lik e P r ic e , h as j n e v e r s e e n N ixon sp ea k e x te m p o r a n e o u sly w ith the u s e of n o te s: I W hen h e 's goin g to fa c e w h o ev er it h ap pens to b e , h e 'll h a v e you r m em oran d u m in fro n t of h im [r e fe r e n c e to w hat M cD on ald c a lle d 136 the "fact sh ee t" ], look at it b efore going in th e re and go for about 25 m in u tes ju st lik e that. The im portant thing about him is h is ab ility to take a se n te n c e , p h ra se, or som eth in g that you have put in and do an im p r o v isa tio n . He can do th is and do it te r r ific a lly . I've se e n him do it. But nobody know s he is doing it. I ’m am azed that no one has e v e r w ritten about th is . (G avin, B -2 5 9 ) In com m en tin g on h is own ex tem p o ra n eo u s sp eech p rep a ra tio n , j N ixon said: i l A lthough I p articip ated in d ebatin g, I did not take any sp ee ch ! c o u r s e s in sch o o l or c o lle g e and no doubt th is is one r ea so n why p rep arin g a sp e e c h is about the h a r d e st w ork I know. E ven when a sp ee ch is "off the c u ff," 1 have to devote a g rea t am ount o f tim e to ou tlin in g in d e ta il the thoughts 1 want to e x p r e s s . (P adrow and R ic h a r d s, 1959:11) M ost o b s e r v e r s a g reed that Trum an w as m o st e ffe c tiv e when he spoke e x tem p o ra n eo u sly . R o ss com m en ted that the "w histle stop" ex tem p o ra n eo u s sp e e c h e s "w ere perhaps m o re im p ortan t than the m ajor a d d r e ss e s " (1948:88). W hile that com m en t m ight not apply to N ixon, it can be sa id that he too not on ly p r e fe r s , but d o es h is b e st sp eak in g, ex te m p o r a n e o u sly . iM anu scrip t S p eech es M an u scrip t s p e e c h e s , read v e rb a tim , are so m e tim e s m an d a to ry for any P r e sid e n t of the U nited S ta te s. If N ixon is going to read fro m a m a n u sc rip t, then the p rep aration p r o c e s s is d iffe re n t than if he w ere sim p ly "respon ding," " rem ark in g," or conducting a p r e ss c o n fe r e n c e . On a m a n u sc rip t sp e e c h , N ixon w ill c a ll fo r su g g e stio n s fro m h is e n tir e w ritin g sta ff, but u su a lly d oes not co n su lt th em further, 137 F ro m th e ir co n trib u ted m a te r ia ls and h is ow n id e a s , he w ill w r ite the in itia l and su b seq u e n t d ra fts of the a d d r e s s . A n d rew s sa id that in A p ril 1972, he w as . . . su m m o n ed to h is [N ix o n 's] o ffic e and he s a id , "O kay, h e r e is what w e a r e goin g to be d oin g. We a re going on TV to m o rr o w nigh t to ta lk about V ietn am and th e r e is an o u tlin e ." He c a lls it an o u tlin e but it tu rn s out to be a c o m p le te te x t, "being ty p ed up by m y s e c r e ta r y w h ich w ill be g iv en to you and I want you to fle s h it out and get it into sh a p e." He f e e ls I know h is s ty le so he s a y s , "put it in m y sty le ." W ell, w hen I g e t the thing it tu rn s out to be p r a c tic a lly a fu ll-b lo w n d ra ft a lr e a d y and 1 ju st fid d le around w ith the o r g a n iz a tio n a lit t le b it and try and tig h te n it up and c le a n it up w h ere it lo o k s lik e it n e ed s it and m o re often than n o t, h e puts it back the way it w as in th e f ir s t p la ce a fte r he g e ts m y r e w r ite and it g o e s th at w ay. (B -2 7 5 , B -2 7 6 ) C o n cern in g h is a c c e p ta n c e sp e e c h at th e 1972 M iam i C on ven tion , M cD onald sta te d , "We w e r e a ll down th e r e at the co n v en tio n and we w aited w ith in te r e s t to h ea r the a c ce p ta n c e a d d r e ss ju s t lik e e v er y o n e e ls e " (B -3 1 3 ). With r eg a rd to N ix o n 's e le c tio n v ic to r y sp e e c h in 1972, X>ezar r e c a lle d : I d on 't know who w a s p la y in g around w ith id e a s on th at, but I'm su re he [N ixon ] w as g iv en a lo t of m a te r ia l. S om e of the lin e s ! m ig h t h a v e su r v iv e d . . . . S om e of u s a r e v e ry proud of ou r f o r m a l q u a lific a tio n s in te r m s of tra in in g and our a b ility to turn in a s e n te n c e , but it 's a m a zin g to s e e the P r e s id e n t at w ork. S o m e tim e s y o u 'll do so m e th in g and h e * 1 1 sen d it back to you , not to say "N o, 1 don 't lik e it," but to c o r r e c t so m e th in g , to e d it it, or to ch an ge it around b e fo r e he g o e s off to do an oth er v e r s io n o f it. He i s u n b e lie v a b le s o m e tim e s , m ea n in g th e guy r e a lly h a s a good fe e lin g fo r w r itin g . ( B - 2 9 2 , B -2 9 3 ) R o o s e v e lt, in h is fo r m a l s p e e c h e s , a ls o c a lle d fo r s u g g e s tio n s |from h is w r it e r s , but o n ly a fte r he had g iv en them a l is t o f the m a in i to p ic s h e w ish ed to c o v e r . L ike N ixon , FD R w ould th en r e tir e s o m e 138 w h ere to In itiate a fo r m a l d r a ft, w h ich w ould be g iv en to h is s e c r e ta r y , G race T u lly , to ty p e . T ru m an , in p rep a rin g h is fo r m a l s p e e c h e s , u sed the " a sse m b ly - lin e" tech n iq u e (C a r te r , 1960:26), w h ere v a r io u s g o v ern m en t d e p a r t- ; m en ts p rovid ed the raw sp e e c h m a te r ia l, the n igh t sh ift put it into j ! d raft fo r m , C lark C liffo rd and M att C o n n elly e d ite d it, T rum an look ed it o v e r , d is c u s s e d it w ith h is w ife , m ade a few c h a n g e s, and d e liv e r e d it. C a r ter fu rth er noted that: j The 3 0 0 -odd s p e e c h e s w e re the c r e a tio n s of a c o m p o site hum an i b rain c o m p o se d of e ig h t o r ten in d iv id u a ls, in clu d in g the P r e s i d en t and h is fa m ily . We cou ld not afford the tim e fo r p rid e of j a u th o rsh ip o r p e r so n a l p r e s tig e . (1948:48) j \ W hen N ixon sp ea k s w ord for w ord fr o m a te x t, he h as e v o lv e d w ith | I R o se W oods an u n u su al fo rm a t fo r the typed p a g e s. A sa m p le of th is fo r m a t is p r e se n te d on the fo llo w in g page (1 3 9 ). T his is a cop y of a page fro m the P r e s id e n t's a ctu a l read in g m a n u sc r ip t o f h is r ep o rt on the M oscow S u m m it b e fo re the jo in t s e s s io n o f C o n g r e ss on June 1, 1972. The m o st o u tsta n d in g fe a tu r e about the o r ig in a l m a n u sc r ip t w as its u n u su a lly | la r g e ty p e , a llo w in g th e P r e sid e n t e a s ie r rea d in g . A seco n d u n u su al f e a tu re is that N ixon r e ta in e d c u sto m a r y o u tlin e fo r m e v en though it is a c o m p le te te x t. Thus p a ra g ra p h s a r e n u m b ered and le tte r e d to show m a jo r p o in ts, su b p o in ts, and su b -su b p o in ts. B ein g typ ed in su ch a w ay r e v e a ls the P r e s id e n t's r ig o r o u s dem and for tig h t o r g a n isa tio n , sta r tin g a lm o st e v e r y se n te n c e a s a n ew p aragrap h in d en ted f iv e , ten or fifte e n s p a c e s , a c co rd in g to its p o sitio n in the str u c tu r e . The la r g e ty p e , to g e th e r w ith the p a ragrap h o u tlin e fo r m , is N ix o n 's w ay of m ak in g the m a n u sc r ip t Two further accords which were reached last week have a much mere direct b ea rin g on the search for peace and security. 1. One is the agreement between the American and Soviet navies aimed at significantly reducing the chances of dangerous incidents between our ships and aircraft at sea. 2. Second, and most important, there is the treaty and related executive agreement which wilt limit, for the first time, both offensive and defensive strategic nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the United Slates and the USSR. i I (11 Three fifths of all the people alive in the worid today have spent their whole lifetimes under the shadow of a nucisar war which could be l touched off by the arm s-rsce among the greai powers. i (21 Last Friday in Moscow we witnessed the beginning | of the end of that or a which began in 1945. I i 1. tVe took the first step toward a new era ; of mutually agreed restraint and arms j i limit:!lion between the two principal nuclear ! i p o A 'trs. ! i i F ig. 1 .--S am p le Nixon M an u scrip t Page j 140 e a s ie r fo r h im to fo llo w --b o th w ords and thought. The fo rm a t a lso p e r m its h im to g la n ce up and retu rn to h is p lace on the tex t w ith r e la tive e a s e . It a lso p e r m its h im to d ep art o c c a sio n a lly fro m the tex t i when he w ish e s to add so m eth in g ex te m p o r a n e o u s. ! B e c a u se m a n u sc rip t sp e e c h e s are u sed on ly on th o se o c c a sio n s w h ere ea ch w ord u ttered is w eighed e x tr e m e ly c a r e fu lly fo r p o ssib le r e p e r c u s s io n s . N ixon hard ly e v e r d ep arts from h is p rep ared sp e e c h orj sk ip s o v er w ords or se n te n c e s . H ow ever, on th o se in freq u en t o c c a - I I sio n s w h ere he m ay want to dep art s lig h tly , the ou tlin e fo rm and la rg e | j type a llo w him th is la titu d e , w ith the lis te n e r u su a lly having no id ea that he has dep arted from h is p rep ared r e m a r k s. Typed in th is w ay, j N ixon se ld o m lo s e s h is p lace in the tex t and the p rob lem o f "clutching up" and sounding d isjo in ted or u n organ ized is v irtu a lly e lim in a te d . On th o se r a re o c c a sio n s when N ixon r e q u e sts fir s t d rafts from h is w r ite r s , the te x t w ill a lm o st alw ays be sh o r te r than the len gth of j tim e N ixon r e a lly in ten d s to speak: . . . he m a k es us w rite to a fifte e n m inu te tim e lim it and u su a lly talk s b etw een tw enty and tw e n ty -fiv e m in u te s. This en a b le s him to g ive so m e w a rm -u p . . . get the fo r m a litie s out of the way at the b eginn in g. U su a lly at the end he w on't e x a c tly end w ith the p ero ra tio n that we have w ritten for h im but he w ill do som eth in g uniquely h is own at the end w hich adds th ree to fiv e m in u tes on the end of ea ch p rep ared te x t. {A n d rew s, B -2 8 0 ) H uebner p rovid ed an ex a m p le of the ty p ic a l d raftin g p ro ced u re u sed on a fo r m a l " sp eech" by ou tlin in g how N ixon 's A p ril 1972 C an a dian P a r lia m e n t A d d r ess w as fo rm u la ted (B -2 3 2 ). P r ic e , b ein g aw are 141 of the upcom ing a d d r e ss , a ssig n e d the in itia l drafting r e sp o n sib ility to H uebner. Knowing th is , the P r e sid e n t w rote a m em o to H uebner in d i ca tin g that he w anted to speak on fo r e ig n p o licy in g e n e r a l and not ju st 1 about C a n a d ia n -A m erica n r e la tio n s. The State D ep artm en t, b eca u se th ey too knew of the pending sp e e c h , su b m itted a p rop osed draft w h e r e in they ou tlin ed what they thought N ixon ought to c o v e r . i G iven th is a u d ien ce, H uebner w rote the f ir s t d raft and se n t it to N ixon. The P r e sid e n t w as to ta lly p reo ccu p ied at that tim e with a d e c is io n regard in g a resu m p tion of the bom bing of N orth V ietnam and had S little tim e to red ra ft H u eb n er’s copy. In stead , N ixon se n t H uebn er's copy back w ith p aragrap h s knocked ou t, sc r ib b lin g along the m a r g in s, and a note at the end sayin g " see m y sp ee ch back in 1958 on such and su ch , th e r e 's a good ending in that one that m ight fit in h ere" (H ueb n e r , B -2 3 3 ). H uebner then m ade an oth er draft and su b m itted it back to N ixon. F or s e v e r a l w eek s he did not h ear fro m the P r e sid e n t r e garding th e sp ee ch . H ow ever, the n igh t b efo re N ixon le ft for C anada, H uebner w as su m m on ed to C am p D avid w h ere he talk ed with the P r e s i dent about "two or th ree m in or little fin a l ch a n g es." That conclu ded H u eb n er's p a rticip a tio n in the sp ee ch . F D R , by way of c o n tr a st, fa r m e d out the ta sk of a sse m b lin g jthe m a te r ia l and putting it into f ir s t draft form (C a r ter , 1960:25). lOnly then would he take the d raft under a d v ise m e n t, r e tir e so m ew h ere j [with a ste n o g r a p h er , and put it into h is own w o rd s. A t th is point, 142 I R o o se v e lt w ould e ith e r red icta te it, c r itic iz e it in m a rg in a l n o ta tio n s, ior am end it by strik in g out and su b stitu tin g se c tio n s (R ay, 1956:15). ■Nixon, w hile known to do a ll th r e e , p r e fe r s both to c r itic iz e and su p p lem en t by m a rg in a l notation. ! T rum an, lik e N ixon, tr ie d to s y s te m a tiz e the p r o c e s s of p r e paring what he c a lle d "form al" a d d r e ss e s (W hite and H in d e rlid e r, 1954:40): 1. He would su g g e st to h is w ritin g sta ff an ou tlin e of what he w anted to sa y . 2. The sta ff would then gather the n e c e s s a r y data and p rep are a rough draft. 3. This and su cc ee d in g drafts w ere d is c u s s e d in staff c o n fe r e n c e s , a fter w hich T rum an would take the d raft, along with the su g g e s tio n s, and draw up another d raft. 4 . E ven after the fin a l copy w as p rep a red , Trum an would freq u en tly m ake additional ch an ges and rew ork c e r ta in p a g es. | N ixon 's fam ou s y e llo w le g a l pads a r e , accord in g to P r ic e , tru ly r e p r e se n ta tiv e of N ixon 's way of p rep arin g im p ortan t a d d r e s s e s . He w ill go through m any y e llo w pads gath erin g and m aking n o te s, stra ig h ten in g out and o rg a n izin g id e a s, w orking in a v ery sy ste m a tic way on h is thoughts. A fter that, he w ill d icta te ta p es to R o se W oods, who w ill then type th em into h is s p e c ia l draft m a n u scrip t form (su p r a , jp. 139). P r ic e e m p h a siz e d that on the im portant s p e e c h e s N ixon d oes m o st of the w ork h im s e lf and v e r y little with h is w r ite r s . F or e x a m ple: 1 4 3 . . . h is A p ril 3, 1969 V ietnam sp e e c h w hich w as the "New A m e r ican M ajority" sp eech in w hich he r e a lly did turn the country around on V ietnam at a v e ry c r u c ia l tim e , that w as one that he did j c o m p lete ly h im se lf with h is y ello w pad and d ictatin g m ach ine at Cam p D avid. (B -210) A ndrew s related : j . . . th is su m m er [1972] on the accep ta n ce sp e e c h , we had su b - ; m itted p ack ages and p ack ages of m a te r ia l and we n e v e r got any j feed b ack of how he lik ed it. E v ery now and then we would g et a req u est to d evelop so m e thoughts on a topic that we hadn't c o v e r e d , but w hen the accep ta n ce sp ee ch w as d e liv e r e d that w as the j f ir s t that any of us knew ex a ctly what it w as going to sa y . We i did n’t s e e any d rafts as he went alon g, although Bob H aldem an rep orted that th e se d rafts w ere taking sh ap e. But even then the only p erso n that had se e n the d r a fts, other than the P r e sid e n t, w as R ose W oods, h is s e c r e ta r y , and we cou ld r ec o g n ize little chunks j and b its of id ea s that we had su b m itted . The o rg a n iza tio n of the thing, the w ording of it, the w ritin g of it w as e n tir e ly h is own p ro ject and it w ill lik ely be the v ery sa m e way for the inaugural [January 1973] and when he does the m ajor a d d r e ss e s on V ietnam on te le v is io n . They have been very m uch h is own p rod u ction s, too. (B -2 7 5 ) K ennedy's p rep aration for the m o re im portant a d d r e ss e s w as | icertain ly d ifferen t from N ix o n 's. W henever S oren son brought in a I m an u scrip t for K ennedy's r e a c tio n , they engaged in long p erio d s of ied iting, c o lla b o r a tio n , and rew ritin g up to th e hour of d e liv e r y (G olden, '1966:352). A s M iller noted: S oren son c e r ta in ly app eared . . . to be m uch m ore than K ennedy's "sp eech w riter" or " rh etorician " ; he se e m e d m o re n ea rly h is in t e l lec tu a l co lla b o ra to r and, a s the c u r re n t p o litic a l-s c ie n c e jargon m ight put it, h is c o d e c isio n -m a k e r . . . . S o ren so n w as a ls o , and m ore im p o rta n tly , the m ain p articip an t in the d e c is io n s in and behind and around the sp e e c h e s . (1964:27) H uebner had a chance to r ev iew a ll the pads N ixon u sed in p r e paring h is 1973 in au gural a d d ress: "He ask ed us to go through them 144 and s e e if th e r e w e re id e a s th at w e w ould w ant to u se fo r fu tu re s p e e c h e s that h e hadn't b een able to u s e at that tim e" (B -2 2 9 ). A s H uebner sa w it , the y e llo w pad w as a s o r t o f running s e n te n c e -to p ic o u tlin e c o n s is tin g m o stly of the m a in id e a s N ixon w anted to u se in a i i sp e e c h . P r ic e c a u tio n ed , h o w e v e r , that the P r e s id e n t u sed y e llo w j pads not on ly fo r s p e e c h e s , but a ls o fo r w ork in g out id e a s d ea lin g w ith | a num ber of o th er th in g s. "He ju st lik e s to w ork on th o se y e llo w pads"j ; I I (B -2 1 1 ). D u ring the 1968 ca m p a ig n , G avin o b s e r v e d N ixon on m any o c - ! i c a s io n s w ith a y e llo w pad, w ritin g " rem a rk s" for h im s e lf, or p erh ap s he w as ed itin g " rem a rk s" r e c e iv e d fr o m h is w r ite r s . S p e e c h w r ite r s do con trib u te to N ixon s p e e c h e s , but a fte r r e c e iv in g th e ir d r a fts, 'Nixon ta k e s th em and puts h im s e lf into a y e llo w pad r e v is io n and r e - w r itin g . T h ere a r e e x c e p tio n s to th is and G avin o b s e r v e d that 8o m e - tim e s under p r e s s u r e of tim e , the c o r r e c tio n s o r e d ito r ia l ch a n g es I e ffe c te d by N ixon p e r so n a lly w ould be m in im a l (B -2 5 1 ). In c o m m en tin g on h is ow n sp ea k in g , N ixon rem a rk ed : J 1 w r ite a ll m y ow n s p e e c h e s . I m ak e up m y ow n m ind w hat to sa y . A lo t of p eop le have told m e that w hat 1 n eed is a p u b lic -r e la tio n s e x p e r t to "hum anize" m e , and so on. B ut I'm not going to do it. I'm not g oin g to h ave a lo t of p u b lic -r e la tio n s p eop le w ork in g on m e , w ith p ic tu r e s o f m e doing s illy th in gs 1 w ou ld n't do n a tu r a lly , and so on . (A lso p , 1958:27) A t th e tim e of th is w r itin g , th e m o st r e c e n t e x a m p le s of Nixon's i l 'cu stom reg a r d in g the p rep a ra tio n of s p e e c h e s that he d e e m e d of the I I _________________________________________________________________________________________________ h ig h e s t le v e l of im p o r ta n c e is h is n a tio n a lly t e le v is e d a d d r e ss on M ay 12, 1973, in w h ich he announced the r e sig n a tio n s of s e v e r a l of the to p - ranking m e m b e r s of h is sta ff and en u n cia ted h is attitu d e and im m e d ia te p o licy tow ard the W atergate A ffa ir. About a w eek p r io r to th is c r u c ia l a d d r e s s , Z ie g le r announced that the P r e s id e n t w a s r e tir in g to th e rela-l tiv e q u iet of C am p D avid fo r a few d ays in o r d e r to r e a c h fin a l d e c i- j sio n s and to p r ep a re the W atergate sp e e c h . N ew sm e n r e p o r te d th at, u n lik e p r e v io u s s im ila r r e tr e a t s , N ixon w as not a c co m p a n ied by any im p o rta n t sta ff m e m b e r s o r e v en m e m b e r s of h is fa m ily . N ixon e m ployed the sa m e p r a c tic e that he had p r e v io u sly u se d in p rep a rin g im portant a d d r e s s e s , ap p a ren tly e v en m o r e so . E v e r y in d ic a tio n w as i 1 that he u se d h is c u sto m a r y y e llo w pads and d icta tin g m a ch in e w h ile he w rote a ll or p r a c tic a lly a ll of the m a n u sc r ip t s p e e c h . If a r h e to r ic a l Ic ritic, th e r e fo r e , w anted an ex a m p le o f a m a n u sc r ip t sp e e c h that w ould be " p u rely Nixon," the p r o b a b ilitie s a r e that th is W atergate a d d r e ss to the n ation w ould be the b e st sin g le c h o ic e up to that d a te. i C o m p o sin g a N ixon M a n u scrip t Speech: D iffe r e n t A p p ro a ch es by D iffe r e n t W r ite r s .- - T h e ap p roach to d raftin g a N ixon sp e e c h v a r ie s a cco r d in g to th e w r ite r w orking w ith th e P r e s id e n t. P r ic e , w hen w r itin g fo r N ixon , ten d s to w r ite in s m a lle r b its and p ie c e s , u sin g th e !"cut and p a ste" m eth od and th en k n ittin g th o se p ie c e s to g e th e r to fo rm i jan in itia l d ra ft (B -2 1 4 ). F o llo w in g th a t, he w ill lo o k at the p ie c e a s a I I 146 w h ole, o b se r v e its g en era l flo w , d isc a r d so m e p arts and d evelop o th e r s . F u rth er, he w ill try to g en era te c o n n ectiv es to sm ooth out the tr a n sitio n s betw een d ifferen t thought g rou p s. T his p r o c e s s is repeatedj j o v e r and o v er from the in trodu ction to the c o n c lu sio n , until P r ic e feelsi it is accep tab le as a fir s t d raft to be su b m itted to the P r e sid e n t. j i I On the o th er hand, G avin's approach to sp ee ch drafting w as to I w rite out the w hole sp eech and then r e v is e it. That did not n e c e s s a r ily m ean that he did not rev iew the sp ee ch as he w ent along: T here a r e tim e s when I have h it upon a paragraph w hich 1 lik ed and bu ilt around it. T here is an old p r o c e s s in w ritin g c a lle d i "cutting and pasting" and that kind of r e v isio n happens a lo t, but I tend to do the sp ee ch as a w hole and then go b ack , u su a lly c r o s s ing out stu ff and a lso w ritin g in stu ff so that by the tim e the thing is fin ish ed it 's a w hole sp eech . (B -255) ; The fir s t tim e down on paper for A ndrew s w as u su a lly the way ithe sp ee ch ended up b eca u se he had w orked out the d e ta ils in h is head ; p rior to com m ittin g th em to paper: . . . I s it around and so r t of sc r ib b le n o te s, not n e c e s s a r ily an o u tlin e , ju st a lo t of d isco n n ected thoughts that 1 know I w ill want to c o v e r and points to rem ind m y se lf. When 1 fe e l 1 have exh au sted that p r o c e s s , I ju s t sit dow n, m o re often than not w ithout a fo rm a l o u tlin e , and try to le t the thing o r g a n ic a lly flow on p ap er. The se n te n c e s and paragrap h s and the o v e r a ll o r g a n iza tio n of w h atever 1 am w orking on u su a lly shape th e m se lv e s in m y m ind w h ere X don't have to do m a s s iv e r ew ritin g . Of c o u r s e , the P r e sid e n t fo r c e s you to r ew r ite th in gs so m e tim e s b e c a u se th ey are not the way he w ants th em , but 1 have had lo ts of e x p e r ie n c e s of fe e lin g that it w as p retty right the way I put it down the fir s t tim e and having m y c lien t fe e l the sa m e w ay. (B -274) L ike A n d rew s, M cD onald w r ite s the w hole sp ee ch at one s it - I i ting: "I don't sta r t to w rite u n le ss 1 have in m y m ind a p retty good 147 idea of the c o n str u c tio n ” (B -3 1 4 ). L eza r com b in es the m ethods of w ritin g the w hole sp eech a ll at one tim e w ith the "cut and paste" approach. He p r e fe rs to w rite the en tire sp e e c h , rev iew it, and then r ew r ite c e r ta in paragraphs and se n te n c es; ! Som e people h e r e have the e x p e rien ce in e d ito r ia l w ritin g that 1 la ck and they tend to think in m ore d is c r e te qu an tities by w riting the in -b etw een p arts and tr a n sitio n s. It's v ery d ifferen t for m e p e r so n a lly . I tend to think m ore in te r m s of unity and try to d e duce m y parts fro m the unity. (B - 304) N ixon 's w r ite r s vary in the u s e s of te stin g th eir m a n u scrip ts by reading them aloud. P r ic e did not s e e the need b eca u se he had tra in ed h is "m ental e a r to be a le r t to the o ra l flavor" (B -2 1 5 ). H ueb- n e r 's reason in g w as m uch the sa m e as P r ic e 's : If I'm w ritin g for an o ra l sp e e c h , I try to sound it out in m y head. I don't know that 1 actu ally read it aloud o r ju st im agin e it being read aloud. I don't have any r e a l s c ie n tific way of te stin g w heth er or not som eth in g is in the P r e s id e n t's s ty le . I cou ld n ’t give you a lis t of fiv e a b stra c t q u a lities that the P r e sid e n t's sty le h a s, but I think I can , as I read som eth in g through, t e ll w hether som eth in g would ja r with that sty le . F o r that rea so n I read aloud. (B -2 3 6 ) G avin found that read in g aloud did not help him m uch. The im portant ! th in g, he fe lt, was what he c a lle d "rhythm": S o m e tim e s when you read the sp ee ch you d is c o v e r th e r e 's a long se n ten ce and you have got to w rite in a pause fo r b reath and so you change it. R eading aloud h elp s th e re , but the im p ortan ce of re a ’m g the sp eech is fo r rhythm . When your m an g e ts the draft of the sp ee ch , he is going to do h is own rhythm on it anyw ay, so it's a w aste of tim e try in g to get h is rhythm s into a fir s t draft. (B -2 5 6 ) j 148 On the other hand, reading P resid en tia l sp eech es aloud was one of the fir s t thing A ndrew s had to le a r n a fter joining the White H ouse w ritin g staff: . . . when I fir s t cam e ov er h e r e , 1 w as not that a ccu sto m ed to thinking in te r m s of w ritin g for the ea r. My se n te n c e s would be i too lo n g , my p aragrap h s would be too lon g, m y co n stru ctio n s would so m e tim e s be in volu ted , and so I have been fo rced to te s t it out loud to m ake su re it is going to sound a ll righ t and it's going I to be c le a r and e a s y fo r the lis te n e r to fo llo w . (B -2 7 6 ) L a z a r, to o , read s m a n u scrip t sp e e c h e s aloud a fter he has w ritten them : I d ictate a lo t when I w rite a sp ee ch . I ’ll put it on tape and lis te n to it for a w h ile and then put it aw ay and not co m e back to it for two d a y s. I t v e ry m uch is dependent on how it sou n d s. (B -3 0 4 ) Only o c c a sio n a lly , h o w ev er, did M cD onald find it n e c e s s a r y to read a sp eech aloud, and only then b eca u se he found "tongue tw is te r s and w ords that ju st didn't sound right" (B -315)- M ost w r ite r s a g reed that N ixon r a r e ly , if e v e r , r e h e a r se d a m a n u sc rip t sp ee ch p rio r to its d e liv e r y . "He n ev er r e h e a r s e s ," sta ted P r ic e , "and he m ak es a point of n ev er w atching h im s e lf on t e le - |v isio n a lso " (B -2 1 5 ). H uebner rem a rk ed , "I'm a lm o st p o sitiv e that he I d o es not" (B -2 3 6 ). G avin too had n e v e r se e n h im r e h e a r s e . E la b o r a t ing on why the P r e sid e n t h as been relu cta n t to r e h e a r se h is a d d r e s s e s , ! A ndrew s o b serv ed : He d o e s n ’t p r a c tic e sp e e c h e s out loud that I know of. He read s | them o v e r c a r e fu lly and m ay te s t p a s sa g e s out loud in the p riv a cy | of h is o ffic e or h is com p artm en t on the plane when w e 'r e on the way so m e p la c e . But I know he h as sa id that h is g e n e ra l p referen ce 149~| i is not to r e h e a r s e out loud. He n e v e r w a tch es a tape of h im s e lf on t e le v is io n o r lis t e n s to e v e n a u d io -ta p e s of h im s e lf. I think he f e e ls th at that m a k e s you too s e lf - c o n s c io u s . H e h a s r e fe r r e d to so m e p e o p le 's p r a c tic e of try in g out a sp e e c h b e fo r e a m ir r o r o r so m e th in g lik e th a t. He s a y s he w ou ld n't d rea m of doin g that b e c a u se it in d u c es s e lf - c o n s c io u s n e s s . (B -2 8 3 ) A n oth er in te r e s tin g r e a so n why the P r e s id e n t d o e s not lik e to r e h e a r s e h is s p e e c h e s w as p o sited : He [N ixon ] c a n s o m e tim e s not be th e m o s t a p p a ren tly e a s y or g r a c io u s in d iv id u a l an yw ay, and 1 think he know s th a t, and the la s t thin g he w ants to do is tr y and in tro d u ce anything that would m a k e h im s tilte d o r l e s s n a tu ra l in ta lk in g to o th e r p e o p le . (A n d rew s, B -284) W hat r e h e a r s a l N ixon d o e s do is lim ite d to goin g o v e r the m a n u s c r ip t b r ie fly b e fo re d e liv e r y (M cD on ald , B -3 1 5 ). L e z a r , h o w e v e r , in d ic a ted that if th e P r e s id e n t d o es r e h e a r s e h is s p e e c h e s , . . . it c e r ta in ly d o e sn 't s e e m that w ay s o m e tim e s . I h o n e stly don 't know . 1 kind of doubt it b e c a u se he d o e s n ’t s e e m to have I that fin e p o lish o f a C h u r c h ill and he h as m any litt le fo ib le s in h is sp ea k in g that cou ld be o v e r c o m e w ith p r a c tic e , su ch a s eye 1 c o n ta c t, g e s t u r e s , th in gs lik e th at. (B -3 0 6 ) F D R , on the o th er hand, a lw a y s rea d h is s p e e c h e s aloud a s th ey r ea c h e d fin a l d ra ft sta g e to in s u r e tim in g and e ffe c t. P e r h a p s that w as b e c a u se rad io w a s F D R 's c h ie f m ed iu m . T h e se o r a l r e a d in g s w e re done in the p r e s e n c e o f on e o r tw o of h is w r it e r s - - u s u a lly S h erw ood o r R o se n m a n --w h o w ould m ak e c o m m e n ts and su g g e s tio n s I ion h is d e liv e r y . M o st of N ix o n 's w r ite r s do not d is c u s s o r tr y to ch an ge h is 'm ind on p o lic y m a tte r s . P r ic e in d ic a ted th at th e P r e s id e n t ju st did 150 n ot e x p e c t th is fro m h is w r ite r s (B -2 1 7 ). W hile H uebn er did not a rg u e w ith N ixon a s su c h , o ften he w ould try v ig o r o u sly to p e r su a d e h im that one ap p roach w as p r e fe r a b le to an oth er: . . . e v en if he r e je c ts it [a c e r ta in su g g e s te d a p p ro a ch ], w e w ill not abandon it e n tir e ly but w ill tr y to p r e se n t it in a d iffe r e n t I lig h t or m ak e the c a s e again . One o f our w r ite r s talk ed about I doing so m e sp e e c h . . . about th r e e y e a r s ago in w h ich he k ep t j putting a lin e in , th e P r e s id e n t kept k n ock ing it ou t, and e v e r y tim e he got the d ra ft back h e'd put it in a gain and the P r e s id e n t j w ould k e e p k n ock in g it ou t. H e w as n e v e r su re w h eth er the r e a so n j it w a s b ein g k n ock ed out w a s b e c a u se he r e je c te d the id e a o r w h eth er th e P r e s id e n t ju s t d id n 't lik e the lin e . But the fin a l v e r s io n e m e r g e d in so m e fo r m w ithout the lin e b e c a u se that w as the w ay the P r e s id e n t w anted it. (B -2 3 4 ) [ A n d rew s has d is c u s s e d w ith the P r e s id e n t the d ir e c tio n o f a p ro p o sed s p e e c h , in d ica tin g th a t N ixon e x p e c ts th is of h is w r ite r s (B -2 82). C e r ta in ly w hat so m e w r ite r s m ig h t id e a lly w an t, in t e r m s o f a sta ff r e l a tio n sh ip w ith the P r e s id e n t, and what he g e ts a r e tw o d iffe r e n t th in g s, |but N ixon d e fin ite ly d o e s not w ant "yes" m en: I O ne o f th e th in g s that is m o s t g r a tify in g to m e in w ork in g w ith h im , w h eth er you a r e d is a g r e e in g w ith h im a s su ch o r w h eth er you a r e ju s t a sk in g h im to buy what you h ave w r itte n and to ta lly sc r a p it and tr y and do it o v e r h im s e lf o r g iv e it to so m e o n e e ls e , is that I h ave a lw a y s g otten th e fe e lin g that he r e s p e c ts th e p eop le on h is sta ff a s p r o fe s s io n a ls . H e p la c e s a m e a s u r e o f tr u s t and r e s p o n s ib ility in you w h ich is not on ly g r a tify in g but it e n a b le s you to do a b e tte r jo b . A lso it g iv e s you a fe e lin g that you h a v e got so m e sc o p e to e x e r c is e you r ow n ju d g m en t and do what you think is b e s t and e x e r c is e you r ow n s k ills . (A n d rew s, B -2 8 2 ) L e z a r a ck n o w led g ed h avin g a rg u ed w ith N ixon on s o m e is s u e s ;m any t im e s . H o w e v e r , on c e r ta in to p ic s and in c e r ta in a r e a s , N ixon S i e x p e c ts and d e s e r v e s fu ll c o o p e r a tio n . F o r e x a m p le , L e z a r said : I 151 W hen . . . h e ' s d e c id e d h e 's goin g to C hina and he w ants to m ake an a n n o u n cem en t about th at, he d o e sn 't w ant any a rg u m en t fr o m a s p e e c h w r ite r w h o 's v e ry m u ch a g e n e r a lis t, p ro b a b ly , a s op p osed to ta lk in g to K is s in g e r . H e's v e ry c a r e fu l of h is tim e in te r m s of m ak in g s u r e he g e ts a b a la n ced v iew p o in t, but m akin g su r e he g e ts th e b e s t of both s id e s . O b v io u sly , ta lk in g to m e w ou ld n't be as good a s ta lk in g to H en ry. B ut 1 think he h as a g e n e r a lly high reg a r d fo r id e a s . (B -3 0 8 , B -3 0 9 ) A s a sp e e c h w r ite r fo r the P r e s id e n t, P r ic e v e r y se ld o m e n g a g e s in su ch s p e e c h -r e la te d a c tiv itie s a s u s e o f v o ic e , g e s t u r e s , p o stu r e , e tc . , b e c a u se he r e g a r d s N ixon a s an "old pro" at it ( B - 2 1 5 ), who know s m o r e about th o s e m a tte r s than any of h is w r ite r s . A lthough P r ic e w as a p r o fe s s io n a l w r ite r b e fo r e jo in in g the P r e s id e n t's sta ff, he sta ted that N ixon taugh t h im a ll he know s about sp e e c h w r itin g a s an "art" (B -2 1 5 ). H uebn er a lm o st n e v e r m a k e s s u g g e s tio n s on N ix o n 's e x te r n a l sp e e c h m a n n e r is m s , although on one o c c a s io n a fter the 1970 ;ca m p a ig n , N ixon did a sk h im fo r h is thou ghts on h is d e liv e r y du rin g ;the c a m p a ig n , but that w a s th e o n ly o c c a s io n H u ebn er cou ld r e m e m b e r . j I .N e ith er A n d rew s n or M cD onald h ave e v e r m ade su g g e s tio n s to the iP r e s id e n t about d e liv e r y f a c t o r s , but L e z a r noted that w h ile he d o es not do th is e ith e r , o c c a s io n a l su g g e s tio n s (su ch a s th e c o n v e n ien ce of | u sin g a podium the n e x t tim e ) a r e c o m m o n ly m ad e (B -2 9 3 ). A s to why he d o e s not rec o m m e n d c h a n g e s in the P r e s id e n t 's d e liv e r y f a c to r s , L e z a r co m m en ted : . . . h e 's b een a m a jo r p o litic a l fig u r e fo r 25 o r 2 6 y e a r s now and h e 's p r e tty s e t in h is w a y s in te r m s o f how he d e liv e r s s o m e th in g. It's v e r y , v e r y d iffic u lt to ch a n g e. H e 's not an e x p e r i m e n ta lis t in the s e n s e that Lyndon J oh n son w a s w ith , sa y , what 152 LBJ c a lle d "M other": the g r e a t read in g d e v ic e o v e r the le n s of the c a m e r a [te le p r o m p te r ]. He is not m uch in that r eg a r d . . . . (B -2 9 3 ) S u m m ary and C o n c lu sio n s The p u rp ose of th is c h a p te r is to g iv e th e r e a d e r a p ictu re of the s p e e c h w r ite r s 1 fu n ction in th e N ixon a d m in istr a tio n . The e m p h a s is I i is d e lib e r a te ly r e s t r ic te d to th e d e s c r ip tiv e ra th er than the e v a lu a tiv e ; the r o le of the in v e stig a to r b ein g that of r e p o r te r , not c r it ic . R e fe r e n c e s a r e m ad e fro m tim e to tim e in the ch a p ter to the sp e e c h w r itin g fu n ctio n d u rin g th e a d m in istr a tio n s of v a r io u s p r e ce d in g p r e s id e n ts . The p u rp o se o f th e s e r e fe r e n c e s h a s b een r e s tr ic te d to c la r ify in g o r v iv ify in g so m e of th e p r o c e d u r e s u s e d by N ixon and h is w r ite r s , i . e . , the n atu re and s ig n ific a n c e of a g iv en p r o c ed u r e is ; often c la r ifie d by u sin g c o m p a r iso n or c o n tr a s t. I The data in th e ch a p ter a re p red o m in a n tly the e v id e n c e g iv e n ; by s ix of th e s p e e c h w r ite r s who h a v e w o rk ed e x te n s iv e ly w ith N ixon . < The r e lia b ility and v a lid ity of su ch e v id e n c e a r e d is c u s s e d in C h ap - ; te r I {pp. 7 -1 0 ). The r e su ltin g d e s c r ip tio n p r o v id e s a d e ta ile d a cco u n t o f th e s p e e c h w r ite r s ' d a y -to -d a y a c t iv it ie s . In th is c o n c lu d in g s e c tio n , th e s e n u m ero u s d e ta ils a r e view ed in p e r s p e c tiv e and the m ajor c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f the p r e s id e n tia l sp e e c h w r itin g p r o c e s s , a s it o c c u r s t u n d er P r e s id e n t N ixon , a r e d is c u s s e d . ~ " 153 | ( 1. Nixon draw s a c le a r lin e betw een h is p o licy a d v iso r s and h is sp ee ch a d v is o r s. T his m ay be co n tra sted w ith the adm ixture of the two fu n ction s in c a s e s such as F ran k lin R o o se v e lt and h is brain tr u st, or the co lla b o ra tio n of Kennedy and S oren son . : | 2 . N ixon 's co n su lta tio n s on sp eech w ritin g p o lic ie s are fo r the 1 m o st part lim ite d to Ray P r ic e who, as head of the sta ff, r e la y s in for-j m ation and in str u c tio n s to the oth er w r ite r s . H ow ever, there are I o c c a sio n a l e x c e p tio n s. 3. An overw h elm in g m a jo rity of N ixon's public sp e e c h e s are ex tem p o ra n eo u s, w ithout m a n u scrip t, and u su a lly even w ithout n o te s. No other m odern p r e sid e n t h as red uced the p ercen ta g e of m a n u scrip t sp e e c h e s to th is N ixon m in im u m , e .g . , E isen h o w er and Johnson p r e - ! fe r r e d to read verb atim from a tex t in a la rg e m a jo rity of th eir p r e s i- den tal a d d r e s s e s . 4. N ixon 's ex tem p o ra n eo u s sp e e c h e s a r e , h o w ev er, c a r e fu lly {planned and p rep a red . D uring th is p rep aration , he c u sto m a r ily r e q u ire s two kinds of a s s is ta n c e from h is w r ite rs: a. A "fact sh eet" c o m p r isin g a l is t of p oten tially u sefu l ite m s o f in form ation regard in g the aud ien ce and the o c c a sio n , including r em in d er s of any sp e e c h e s he m ay have m ade p r e v io u sly to th is p a rticu la r g e o graphic lo ca tio n . b. A l is t c a lle d " rem ark s," c o m p r isin g p o ten tia lly u sefu l ! a n e c d o te s, slo g a n s, quotable q u o tes, unusual s ta tis - | t i c s , punch lin e s , p a r a b le s, and so on. Nixon read s th e se l i s t s , look in g for what he c a lls "nuggets" w hich he m ay (or m ay not) w eave into h is extem p oran eou s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ speech. _ _ _ „_ _ _ _ _ _ _„_ _ _._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5. M oat of the sp eech w ritin g a s s is ta n c e r e c e iv e d by N ixon is I I the type d e sc r ib e d im m ed ia tely ab ove, and the p rep aration of such m a te r ia ls o p era tio n a lly d efin es the " sp eech w ritin g" function w hich is m o st ty p ica l in N ixon 's staff. It is a lso tim e -c o n s u m in g --in p reparin g I a "fact sh eet" and a lis t of perhaps fifte e n to tw enty " rem a rk s," a j w riter m ay spend s e v e r a l days r e se a r c h in g , thin king, and co m p o sin g , j I 6. N ixon r e s tr ic t s h is u se of public a d d r e ss e s read v erb a tim 1 ! fro m a m a n u scrip t to th ose o c c a sio n s w h ere th is m ode of public | i I a d d re ss is p r a c tic a lly m andatory, e .g . , an accep ta n ce of nom ination sp e e c h , an in au gural a d d r e ss, a te le v is io n sp ee ch announcing a n ew in ter - nation al p o lic y , and the lik e. 7. The p r o c e s s of p rep arin g m an u scrip t sp e e c h e s is , of c o u r s e , qu ite d iffe re n t from that d e sc r ib e d above for extem p oran eou s ^speeches. U su a lly N ixon r eq u ire s one or m ore co m p lete d rafts from h is w r ite r s . H ow ever, he d o es not in th e se c a s e s fo llo w a reg u la r !sy s te m . T here is g r e a t fle x ib ility in N ixon 's w ays of u sin g a ss is ta n c e ifrom h is w ritin g sta ff. And th e r e is w ide v a ria tio n am ong individual Iw riters in th e ir w ays of preparin g a sp ee ch draft. The N ixon p r o c e d u res m ay be c o n tra sted with the a s s e m b ly -lin e approach a s d evelop ed by Trum an fo r what he ca lled "form al" sp e e c h e s . i 8. N ixon d om in a tes both the con ten t and langu age o f h is m an u sc r ip t s p e e c h e s . He d o es th is in s e v e r a l ty p ica l w ays: I a. He sen d s down what h e c a lls an "outline" w hich is I ---- lik e ly to be almost a complete draft: the writer finds 155 that about a ll he can do is tin k er with the m a n u scrip t, m aking m in or ch an ges (w hich m ay w ell be d is r e gard ed ). b. N ixon sen d s down a g e n e r a l d ir e c tiv e and r e q u e sts one or s e v e r a l d ra fts by d iffe re n t w r ite r s; he m ay p rovid e no feedback; the w r ite r s m u st w ait lik e e v ery o n e e ls e | to find out what he fin a lly s a y s . i I c . N ixon sen d s down a g e n e ra l d ir e c tiv e and r e q u e sts a fu ll draft; he m ay retu rn th is draft w ith m ajor d e le tio n s and su g g e stio n s in the m a rg in s for r e v is io n s . d. In m any of th e above in s ta n c e s , N ixon is lik e ly to r e v is e so m e o n e 's w ording of an item and the w r ite r is fru str a ted at how n eatly N ixon h a s im p roved upon what the w r ite r thought w as a "nugget." I e . On r a r e o c c a s io n s of s p e c ia l im p o r ta n c e, N ixon m ay r e tir e to C am p D avid (or e ls e w h e r e ) for tw o or th r e e d ays and (w ith h is y e llo w le g a l pads and a d ictatin g m ach in e) c o m p o se the e n tire sp ee ch . T his p r a c tic e ap p ears to h ave been u sed on a few o c c a sio n s by K en nedy; ap p aren tly n ev er u sed by E ise n h o w er , T rum an, or Johnson; and ev id en ce is in c o n c lu siv e regard in g R o o se v e lt. 9- The w id esp rea d n otion that a sp e e c h w r ite r sp en d s h is tim e p rep arin g m a n u scrip ts of s p e e c h e s that are read a lm o st v erb a tim by a p resid en t is m a s s iv e ly in a ccu ra te when ap p lied to the w ritin g sta ff of P r e sid e n t N ixon. The m o st ty p ica l r o le of N ixon ’s w r ite r s is d e sc r ib e d in Item 5, ab ove. M uch l e s s ty p ica l is the ro le of w ritin g co m p lete sp e e c h d ra fts, 10. N ixon 's o r g a n iza tio n a l ch art fo r the v a rio u s ex ecu tiv e j d ep a rtm en ts and d iv isio n s in d ic a te s that he p r e fe r r e d to c e n tr a liz e ! s e v e r a l w ritin g and r ela ted fu n ction s into a sin g le a d m in istra tiv e 156 u n it, the sc o p e o f w h ich is in d ic a ted by its t it le , "W riting and R e s e a r c h I D iv isio n ." T h is m ea n s th at s e v e r a l n o n -sp e e c h w r itin g fu n ctio n s w e r e sh ifte d fr o m o th er a d m in is tr a tiv e u n its. T h ese n o n -sp e e c h w r itin g d u tie s in clu d e th e p r e p a r a tio n of p r o c la m a tio n s , e x e c u tiv e o r d e r s , ; i ! w r itte n m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e s s , and o th er m a te r ia ls that are n e v e r 1 p r e se n te d o r a lly . N ix o n 's w r ite r s r e p o r t that th e s e n o n -sp e e c h w r itin g d u ties o ccu p y m o r e than h a lf of th e ir w ork in g h o u r s. ' 11. The r e la tio n sh ip s am ong the m e m b e r s of the d iv isio n ap p ear c o m p le te ly n o n -b u r e a u c r a tic . Both the p r e se n t and the fo r m e r h ead of th e grou p r em a rk ed th at th ey o p e r a te d so m ew h a t lik e the se n io r p a rtn er o f a la r g e law fir m . 12. The sta ff a lm o s t n e v e r u s e s the " c o m m itte e m ethod" (su ch !as w as s o m e tim e s u sed by R o o s e v e lt's b rain tr u st) in p rep a rin g m a te - i r ia ls fo r a s p e e c h . U su a lly a m e m b e r w ork s alon e on a g iv en a s s ig n - i m ent; o c c a s io n a lly two o r th r e e w ork a s a te a m . ! 13. The c o m p o sitio n of the sta ff is c o n s is te n t w ith th e N ixon i co n c ep t of how to u tiliz e a s s is t a n c e on h is n e c e s s a r y w ritin g d u tie s. Only one m e m b e r w a s c h o se n fr o m the ranks of p r o fe s s io n a l s p e e c h w r ite r s ( M cD on ald), O nly on e had su b sta n tia l u n iv e r s ity tra in in g in sp e e c h c o m m u n ic a tio n (H u e b n e r ). No two m e m b e r s had th e sa m e l s p e c if ic s in th e ir b a ck g ro u n d s. H o w ev er, a ll a r e in te llig e n t, a ll can ! w r ite w e ll (ra n g in g p erh a p s fr o m good to e x c e lle n t), a ll of th em a g r e e i j w ith m o s t o f N ix o n 's m a jo r p o litic a l c o n v ic tio n s , a ll of th em a r e 157 fa m ilia r w ith N ix o n 's lan gu age s t y le , and none o f th em tr y to a c t as p r e s id e n tia l p o licy a d v is o r s o r c o - d e c is io n - m a k e r s . A nd, a s H uebner e x p r e s s e d it, "We a r e s p e c ia lis t s in g e n e r a liz a tio n " (B -2 3 5 ). 14. C o n c lu sio n s r e g a r d in g the to ta l g e s ta lt of N ix o n 's w ritin g sta ff and N ix o n 's u s e of th e ir m a te r ia ls can n ot be g e n e r a liz e d to any o th e r p r e s id e n t, e x c e p t p erh ap s in one m a jo r r e s p e c t: e v e n though no s y s te m a tic r e s e a r c h fo c u se d on the sp e e c h w r itin g p r o c e s s e s o f F ra n k -j lin R o o s e v e lt, T ru m an , E ise n h o w e r , K en nedy, o r L yndon Joh n son h as b een r e p o r te d , the fr a g m e n ta r y e v id e n c e s e e m s su ffic ie n t to ju s tify the c o n c lu sio n that sp e e c h w r itin g (and d e liv e r y ) are su ch p e r s o n a liz e d b e h a v io r s that ea ch p r e sid e n t m u st c r e a te p r o c e s s e s unique to h im s e lf . C e r ta in ly th is c h a p te r d e s c r ib e s a unique h an d lin g o f s p e e c h - w r itin g p r o c e s s e s , unique to R ich a rd N ixon . CH APTER V SPEECH W RITERS AND THE RHETORICAL CRITIC ! M ost p eop le are m isin fo r m ed on m o st thin gs and th is [gh ostw ritin g] is one thing that a lo t o f people are m isin fo r m ed on. I rem em b er . . . you se n t m e som e a ca d em ic a r tic le s that w ere w ritten on g h o stw ritin g and I w as u tterly appalled at th e se a r tic le s w ritten by i people who su p p osed ly knew what th ey w ere talk in g about, who w ere so c o m p le te ly and a b y ssm a lly ignorant about what they w ere w ritin g about. (P r ic e , B -217) The r e s e a r c h e r is in clin ed to a g ree w ith P r ic e to the exten t of sa y in g that so m e (although not a ll) sc h o la r s in the jo u rn a ls and books of our fie ld have ind eed m ade dogm atic sta te m e n ts reg a rd in g p r e s i d en tia l g h o stw ritin g w ithout having had any fir st-h a n d e x p e r ie n c e with Ithe d a y -to -d a y a c tiv itie s of m odern p r e sid e n tia l sta ff w r ite r s . In m ore than one in sta n c e , sc h o la r s have begun by la b e lin g th e se a c tiv itie s as "gh ostw ritin g" and th en d efining gh ostw ritin g as in h eren tly d e c e p tiv e , d ish o n e st or o th e r w ise u n eth ica l. The sc h o la r m ay then p ro ceed to I ela b o ra te on h is d efin itio n , u sin g h e a r sa y , ru m o r, fo lk lo r e , and f a l la c io u s a n a lo g ie s v irtu a lly untainted by any actu al r e s e a r c h . T his typ e of w ritin g d oes not p rovid e any u sefu l g u id elin e s fo r the r h e to r ic a l c r it ic is m of m od ern p r e sid e n tia l sp eech m ak in g. I 1 ! 158 In th is c h a p te r , th e c o n c lu sio n s (ju s tifie d by th e data of th is study) that w ould t e s t the tru th of r e a c tio n s su ch a s P r ic e 's a r e e x p lo r e d , and g u id e lin e s a r e p ro v id ed fo r the fu tu re c r it ic of m od ern p r e sid e n tia l sp ea k in g . G h o stw ritin g is p o p u la r ly , but in d is c r im in a te ly , u sed to r e fe r i to th o se who c o n trib u te in any way to a n o th e r 's sp e e c h p rep a ra tio n . j B orm an n (1 9 6 1 :4 2 0 -4 2 1 ) d efin ed it a s th e p r a c tic e o f u sin g c o lla b o r a - i to r s to d e c e iv e the a u d ien ce and m ak e the sp ea k er ap p ear b e tte r than | he is (o r at le a s t d iffe r e n t). B u t, a s T h o n ssen and B a ird a rg u ed , | i "the c r it ic is o b lig a te d to lo o k beyond the d e r o g a to r y la b e ls to d i s c o v e r , a s n e a r ly as p o s s ib le , the tru e r e la tio n sh ip b etw een the sp e a k e r and h is w r ite r" (1 9 7 0 :3 3 3 ). C r itic s of m o d ern p r e s id e n tia l a d d r e s s e s , th en , should se e k an u n b ia sed u n d ersta n d in g about the n a tu re of sp e e c h w r itin g p r a c tic e s am ong m o d e rn p r e s id e n ts . T his u n d ersta n d in g sh ou ld in clu d e the p r e s id e n t's sp e e c h p r e p a r a tio n h ab its i a s w e ll a s r e le v a n t in fo r m a tio n about the p e r so n n e l on h is w r itin g j j sta ff. The R h e to r ic a l C r itic Should S u b stitu te th e W ord " S p eech w riter" fo r " G h ostw riter" A s r e p o r te d in th e p r e c e d in g c h a p te r , the m e m b e r s of N ixon 's W riting and R e s e a r c h D iv is io n w e r e p u zz led o r ir r ita te d by th e u se of the te r m " g h o stw riter" w hen the in te r v ie w e r m ad e r e fe r e n c e to the w ord in a sk in g q u e s tio n s. In g e n e r a l, th e ir c o n s e n s u s w as that the w ord g h o stw r itin g is o ld -fa sh io n e d , n a iv e , o r m isle a d in g . They c o n - ■ ■ s id e r e d th e m s e lv e s to be " w riter s" or " s p e e c h w r ite r s." In th e ir o p in io n , th is new te r m in o lo g y dated b ack at le a s t a s far a s the p r e s i dency of F ra n k lin D. R o o s e v e lt. T h is author read the m e m o ir s o r s im ila r books w ritten by j so m e m e m b e r s of F D R 's b r a in tr u s t, e . g . , R o sen m a n , M o ley , H op- | j k in s, Sh erw ood (a s w e ll a s the m e m o ir s o f G ra ce T u lly , F D R 's p e r so n a l s e c r e ta r y ). In read in g th e s e b o o k s, the r e s e a r c h e r did not d i s c o v e r any b rain tr u s te r r e fe r r in g to h im s e lf a s a " g h o stw r ite r ." C u s to m a r ily , th ey d is c u s s e d th is a s p e c t of th e ir r e la tio n sh ip w ith R o o s e v e lt in su rh v a r io u s o rd in a ry te r m s a s "w orking on" a d ra ft, a d v isin g as " sp eech a s s is ta n ts ," o r r eg a rd in g th e m s e lv e s a s sp e e c h " c le r k s." The a ttitu d e s and te r m in o lo g y of F D R 's sta ff a r e ty p ifie d by an e x c e r p t fro m R o se n m a n 's book. W orking With R o o se v e lt: W hen in th e s e c h a p te r s I sa y that th is p e r so n o r that on e w orked on a p a r tic u la r sp e e c h o r m e s s a g e , I m ean th a t--a n d th at on ly. I do not m ean that any p a r tic u la r sp e e c h w as Bob S h erw o o d 's or R ay M o le y 's o r m in e . B e c a u se it w as not. No m a tter how f r e q u en tly the sp e e c h a s s is t a n t s w e re ch an ged through the y e a r s , the s p e e c h e s w e r e a lw a y s R o o s e v e lt's . They a ll e x p r e s s e d the p e r s o n a lity , the c o n v ic tio n s , the s p ir it, the m ood of R o o s e v e lt. No m a tter who w ork ed w ith h im in th e p r e p a r a tio n , the fin ish e d p r o duct w as a lw a y s the s a m e - - i t w as R o o s e v e lt h im s e lf. (Ita lic s m in e .) (1952:27) T ru m a n 's a ttitu d es and te r m in o lo g y w ith r eg a r d to h is s o - c a lle d " a sse m b ly lin e" p r o c ed u r e w as in d ica ted during h is in te r v ie w i i w ith W hite and H en d e rlid e r w hen th ey a sk ed h im , "What ste p s a r e in - [y o lv ed in y o u r p r e p a r a tio n of a fo r m a l sp ee ch ? " Truman r ep lied :______ ! 161 j I The p ro ced u re 1 fo llo w ed as P r e s id e n t w as to s u g g e s t to m y sta ff | an o u tlin e of what 1 w anted to sa y . N e v e r d e ta ile d , the o u tlin e j c o n s is te d la r g e ly of a lis tin g of the m o st im p o rta n t p o in ts. The sta ff then g a th ered the n e c e s s a r y data and d rew up a rough draft. T his and su c c e e d in g d rafts w ere d is c u s s e d in sta ff c o n fe r e n c e . (Ita lic s m in e .) (1964:40) At no tim e du rin g the in te r v ie w did T rum an u s e the te r m g h o stw r ite r j or any o th er te r m r e m o te ly s im ila r to it. The e n tir e ton e of the in te r -j v iew s u g g e s ts that T rum an c o n sid e r e d the p re p a r a tio n o f v a rio u s d ra fts a s a p e r fe c tly n o r m a l and n e c e s s a r y duty, alon g w ith d o z e n s of j o th er d u tie s, that a m o d ern p r e sid e n t a s s ig n s to h is sta ff. L ik e w is e , the d ir e c t e v id e n c e in d ic a te s that E ise n h o w e r , K en - j n ed y, and Joh n son n e v e r p u b licly u se d , and p rob ab ly did not e v en p r i v a tely u s e , the w ord g h o stw r ite r . The c o n c lu sio n is that the te r m " P r e sid e n tia l g h o stw ritin g " is jindeed ou td ated , n a iv e , m is le a d in g , and b ia se d . M odern p r e sid e n ts h ave sim p ly taken fo r g ra n ted that sta ff a s s is ta n c e on the p rep a ra tio n of d ocu m en ts is so o b v io u sly a n e c e s s ity o f the o ffic e that it fa lls into i the c a te g o r y of sta ff a s s is ta n c e on d e ta ils fo r the p u rp ose o f sa v in g p r e sid e n tia l tim e . T h e r e fo r e , the te r m " sp e e c h w r ite r " (or p erh ap s " staff w r ite r ," o r e v en th e b ro a d er te r m , " w riter" ) a p p ea rs to be a m o re a c cu ra te te r m to d e s c r ib e th is type o f sta ff a s s is t a n c e s in c e at le a s t a s e a r ly a s the p r e sid e n c y of F ra n k lin D. R o o s e v e lt. ! i 1 162 The R h e to r ic a l C r itic M ust V iew P r e s id e n tia l S p ee c h - w r itin g in th e C on text o f the T o ta lity o f P r e s id e n tia l R e s p o n s ib ilitie s and W orkload The s h e e r volu m e of m a te r ia ls that a p r e sid e n t i s r eq u ired to p r e se n t in e ith e r o r a l o r w r itte n fo r m m a k es it a p h y sic a l im p o s s ib ility I fo r one m an to p e r fo r m the e n tir e ta sk a lo n e . i B on afed e in d ica ted that " m ore than a h a lf m illio n w ord s a re f I i w r itte n an n u ally by the P r e s id e n t's [N ix o n 's] w r ite r s . A bout 1 8 0 ,0 0 0 ' w ord s a r e d ev o ted to m a jo r p o licy a c tio n s" (1 9 7 2 :3 1 1 ). A ssu m in g that the P r e s id e n t w orked se v e n d a y s ea ch w eek fo r a ll fifty -tw o w eek s e a ch y e a r , th is w ould m ea n tu rn in g out o v e r 1, 370 w o rd s e a ch day. F o r any p e r so n to tu rn out 1 ,3 7 0 w o rd s p er day ea ch day, w ithout a b rea k , w ould be n e a r ly im p o s s ib le . To r eq u ire a p r e sid e n t, w ith the m u ltip lic ity of o th e r ta s k s fa c in g h im , to u n d ertak e th is am ount of r e s e a r c h and w ritin g b o r d e r s on th e lu d ic r o u s. A b a sic fu n ction of s p e e c h w r ite r s is not to put w ord s into the P r e s id e n t's m ou th , but ra th er to e lim in a te so m e of the m ou n tain s of v o lu m in o u s m a te r ia ls r eq u irin g a tten tio n and a ctio n by th e C h ief E x e c u tiv e , p a r tic u la r ly c o n c e r n in g w r itte n m a te r ia ls that go out o v e r the P r e s id e n t's n a m e . F o r the P r e s id e n t to sp en d the tim e c h e c k in g , c le a r in g , c o m p r o m isin g , n e g o tia tin g , and r e s e a r c h in g to c o n str u c t e v e r y P r e s id e n tia l d ocu m en t w ould sim p ly be im p o s s ib le . A s G avin stated : 163 The P r e s id e n t of the U nited S ta te s is an in c r e d ib ly bu sy m an , . beyond w hat anyon e can im a g in e . E ven fo r a m an a s w e ll o r g a n iz e d a s is the P r e s id e n t, he sim p ly d o e s n ’t h ave the tim e to do h is own w r itin g . 1 think w hen it g e ts down to the im p o rta n t ad d r e s s e s lik e V ietn am o r C am b od ia that he fin d s the tim e . But you ca n 't ta lk about sp e e c h w r itin g in q u a n tifia b le b lo c k s. A p r o c la m a tio n on X w eek ju st d o e sn 't b egin to c o m p a re w ith th e im p o r tan ce of a m a jo r p o licy a d d r e ss . (B -2 7 0 ) ] I n te r e s tin g ly , th e r e a r e th o se in the W hite H ou se who f e e l th at N ixon j | sp en d s too m u ch tim e as it is on h is own sp ee ch w r itin g ; that it is not j j the b e s t u s e of h is tim e . ! i The r e s e a r c h on the v a r ie ty of to p ic s on w h ich the P r e s id e n t sp ea k s or i s s u e s sta te m e n ts is e x te n s iv e . R e s e a r c h is req u ire d on p r a c tic a lly a ll of the m a te r ia ls w ritten by the P r e s id e n t's w r it e r s , so m e of it req u irin g thou ghtfu l a n a ly s is of te c h n ic a l a n d /o r c o m p le x m a t e r ia ls . A d d itio n a lly , the to ta l w ritin g in v o lv ed c o v e r s an e x c e p tio n a lly w ide range of su b je c ts fr o m a B oy l S cou t Day p r o c la m a tio n to a sp e e c h on the c o s t s of m e d ic a l c a r e fo r the aged . The am ount of tim e req u ire d to r e s e a r c h ju s t a se e m in g ly sim p le p r o c la m a tio n w a s illu s tr a te d in C h ap ter IV (s u p r a , pp. 122- 123), A nother typ e of req u ire d p r e p a r a tio n fo r a w r ite r , i . e . , a tten d ance at a S e n a to r ia l c o m m itte e m e e tin g , w as a ls o c ite d in C h ap ter IV (su p r a , p. 130). M o st p r e s id e n tia l d o cu m en ts do not r eq u ire o r d e s e r v e p e r - so n a l p r e s id e n tia l tr e a tm e n t. When p r e s id e n tia l sp ea k in g r e - p r e s e n t s p o lic ie s , p o s itio n s , 164 i and p h ilo s o p h ie s on w h ich th e P r e s id e n t h a s a lr e a d y sp o k en or w r itte n ,! I w h at i s r e q u ir e d o f th e w r ite r s th en is an a ir o f f r e s h n e s s and n ew w a y s o f illu s t r a tin g , d e s c r ib in g , d r a m a tiz in g , o r puttin g a c r o s s o ld p o in ts. S o m e o n e h a s to exp en d a g r e a t am ou n t of t im e , e n e r g y , and j ! thou ght in o r d e r to p r o v id e th is f r e s h n e s s . A s B o n a fed e in d ic a te d , I " m o re than a h a lf m illio n w o r d s a r e w r itte n a n n u a lly by the P r e s id e n t'll w r ite r s " (1 9 7 2 :3 1 1 ) and w h ile 1 8 0 ,0 0 0 w o r d s do d e a l w ith m a jo r p o lic y ; a c tio n s , 3 2 0 ,0 0 0 do n o t. M o st of th e s e h u n d red s of th o u sa n d s o f w o r d s d e a l w ith to p ic s of l e s s e r im p o r ta n c e , in c lu d in g m an y th a t a r e p u re ly r o u tin e . If the P r e s id e n t w e r e r e q u ir e d to g iv e h is p e r s o n a l a tte n tio n to e v e r y p ie c e of le g is la t io n and its a c co m p a n y in g m e s s a g e , p lu s d e c - j I la r a tio n s , p r o c la m a tio n s , l e t t e r s , t e le g r a m s , a n n o u n c e m e n ts, p r o p o s a ls , e x e c u tiv e o r d e r s , m e m o r a n d u m s, p o lic y d ir e c t iv e s , in tr o - i d u c tio n s , c o m m u n iq u e s , and p r iv a te c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , h is job a s C h ie f i E x e c u tiv e w ou ld be d e v o ted to w r itin g , and th a t a lo n e . W hile th e r e are c e r ta in w r itte n d o c u m e n ts w h ich r e q u ir e p r e s id e n tia l a tte n tio n , th e p oin t iB th at th e r e m u s t o f n e c e s s it y be p r io r ity a m on g th e s e v o lu m i n ou s m a t e r ia ls . T h er e a r e p r e s id e n tia l d u tie s o f h ig h e r p r io r ity than th e w ritin g o f m o s t s p e e c h e s or o th e r d o c u m e n ts. T he d e c is io n c o n c e r n in g w h eth er o r n ot to v is it C h in a o r R u ssia 'c e r ta in ly r e q u ir e d th o u g h t, d is c u s s io n , c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w ith th e j c o u n t r ie s , and d e lib e r a tio n b e fo r e the a c tu a l d e c is io n to go w a s m a d e . 165 The am ount of tim e req u ired for planning the tr ip , p r e p a r a tio n , and d ip lo m a tic a r r a n g e m e n ts m u st have o c cu p ied a s ig n ific a n t p o rtio n of the P r e s id e n t's tim e . C e rta in ly the sp e e c h announcing the pending i tr ip w as a ls o im p o rta n t and w as p rob ab ly c lo s e ly s u p e r v is e d and c o n tr o lle d in its p rep a ra tio n by th e P r e s id e n t, but the sp e e c h w as not a s i im p o rta n t a s the d e c is io n to go. F o r the P r e s id e n t to p reo ccu p y h im - J s e lf du rin g th is im p ortan t tim e of d e c is io n -m a k in g w ith the d raftin g of | a p r o c la m a tio n , p o licy d ir e c tiv e , o r so m e o th e r rou tin e e x e c u tiv e [ ; i m a tte r w ould be a m is u s e of h is tim e . M uch of th is o th e r kind of ■ I p r e s id e n tia l w o rk , done m o stly by the P r e s id e n t ’s s p e e c h w r ite r s , is sim p ly m e c h a n ic a l in n a tu re. It in v o lv e s h elp in g the P r e s id e n t g e t 1 down on pap er in an o r g a n iz e d way what h e w an ts to s a y , w h eth er in a sp e e c h o r a w ritten d ocu m en t. It u su a lly in c lu d e s c o n su ltin g w ith i p eop le w ith w hom the P r e s id e n t w ould c o n su lt if he had the tim e , and l I r e so lv in g d iffe r e n c e s , str e n g th s , and w e a k n e s s e s in the d ocu m en t. In illu s tr a tin g th is p oin t, H uebner r e fe r r e d to the C an adian P a r lia m e n t A d d r e s s , n otin g that he sp en t o v e r a w eek ju s t p u llin g to g eth er th o u g h ts, id e a s , s u g g e s tio n s , s t o r i e s , h is to r ic a l a llu s io n s , and q u o ta tio n s. "The P r e s id e n t co u ld n 't c o n c e iv a b ly h ave g iv en e v e n a p a rt of th at tim e to the sp e e c h . O h, c e r ta in ly h e cou ld have but that w ould h a v e m ea n t that so m e th in g e ls e w ould h ave su ffered " (B -2 3 7 ). I In su m m a r y , the r h e to r ic a l c r it ic in te r e s te d in stu d y in g the sp ee ch m a k in g of a g iv en m o d ern p r e sid e n t sh ou ld r e a liz e th at the 166 a ltern a tiv e to the u se of p r e sid e n tia l sp e e c h w r ite r s is not that the | P r e sid e n t p e r so n a lly p rep are a ll o f h is own s p e e c h e s , o ffic ia l p a p ers, and oth er w ritten m a te r ia ls . P r e sid e n ts are busy m en and b eca u se I part o f th eir r e sp o n sib ility a s public se r v a n ts is rep ortin g to the p eo - j I pie through sp e e c h e s and w ritten sta te m e n ts, th is m ight be a fu ll-tim e j : I and d isco u ra g in g job if they w ere fo rced to do a ll the w ord -w eigh in g an4 p en -ch ew in g c o m p o sitio n th e m s e lv e s . In the p r o c e s s of r h e to r ica l c r it ic is m , a c r itic m u st evalu ate h is own p r o fe s sio n a l b ia s e s . N atu r a lly to a sp eech c r itic , sp ee ch p rep aration i s , if not the m o st im p o r tant, a h igh ly im portant part of e x ec u tiv e r e sp o n sib ility . H ow ever, in ligh t of the above points in d icatin g r e a so n s why a p r e sid e n t sim p ly cannot p e r so n a lly p rep are a ll of h is public co m m u n ica tio n , to ex p ect a J p resid en t to do o th e r w ise d o es not in d icate a c le a r p ercep tio n of the p r e sid e n c y in m od ern tim e s . The R h eto r ic a l C r itic Should E valuate S p eech w ritin g in the C ontext o f the C om p osition and D u ties of a G iven P r e s id e n t's S p eech w ritin g Staff F ir s t , the s iz e of the P r e s id e n t's sta ff, the w r ite r s ' b a ck grou n d s, and how they are lis te d on the W hite H ouse o rg a n iza tio n a l ch art should be an alyzed . A s in d icated in C hapter IV of th is stu d y, N ixon h as a sta ff of |w r ite r s o rg a n ize d under and d ir ec ted by P r ic e known a s the "W riting |and R e se a r c h D iv isio n ." N ixon 's co n su lta tio n s on sp eech w ritin g p o li- c ie a a r e , for the m o st p art, lim ite d to P r ic e w ho, as d ir e c to r of the 167 d iv isio n , r e la y s in form ation and in str u c tio n s to the other w r ite r s . i N ix o n 's o r g a n iz a tio n a l c h a r t fo r the v a r io u s e x e c u tiv e d e p a r tm e n ts and d iv is io n s in d ic a te s th a t he p r e fe r s to c e n tr a liz e s e v e r a l w r itin g and 1 r e la te d fu n c tio n s in to a s in g le a d m in is tr a tiv e u n it, the sc o p e o f w h ich is in d ic a te d by it s t it le , " W ritin g and R e s e a r c h D iv is io n ." T h is m e a n s j i th a t s e v e r a l n o n -s p e e c h w r itin g fu n c tio n s su ch as th e w r itin g of p r o c la - l m a tio n s , a n n o u n c e m e n ts, d ir e c t iv e s , e tc . , w e r e sh ifte d fr o m o th e r a d m in is tr a tiv e u n its . N ix o n 's w r ite r s r e p o r t th at th e s e n o n - s p e e c h - I w r itin g d u tie s o c cu p y m o r e than h a lf o f th e ir w o rk in g h o u r s. I F r a n k lin R o o s e v e lt, thou gh he had a la r g e and w id e ly p u b liciz ed c o n tin g e n t o f w r it e r s , n e v e r o r g a n iz e d th em in to a w r itin g u n it under j f th e s u p e r v is io n o f one w r ite r who d ir e c te d the w o rk o f the e n tir e sta ff. R o o s e v e lt r e c r u ite d m an y b ig -n a m e p e o p le to w ork on v a r io u s s p e e c h e s , e.g. , R o b e r t S h er w o o d , H a rry H o p k in s, A r c h ib a ld M ac - : L e is h , R e x fo rd T u g w e ll, and so on. By c o n tr a s t, th e c o m p o s itio n of I N ix o n 's s ta ff r e v e a ls a d iffe r e n t p h ilo so p h y o f the s p e e c h w r it e r 's r o le ; N ixon r e c r u it s " c r a fts m e n ," not V IP s. N ix o n 's sta ff m e m b e r s I a r e h ir e d p r in c ip a lly a s w r ite r s who d e v o te th e ir fu ll tim e to th e d r a ftin g o f both s p e e c h and n o n sp e e c h w r itte n d o c u m e n ts . N e v e r th e l e s s , o n ly one m e m b e r w a s a p r o fe s s io n a l s p e e c h w r ite r . O nly on e , had p r e v io u s ly had su b s ta n tia l u n iv e r s ity tr a in in g in sp e e c h c o m m u n i- i c a tio n . No tw o h ave th e s a m e s p e c if ic s in th e ir b a c k g r o u n d s. H ow - f e v e r , a ll a r e in t e llig e n t , c a n w r ite w e ll, a g r e e w ith m o s t o f N ix o n 's 166 a lter n a tiv e to the u se of p r e sid e n tia l sp e e c h w r ite r s is not that the P r e sid e n t p e r so n a lly p rep are a ll of h is own s p e e c h e s , o ffic ia l p a p ers, and oth er w ritten m a te r ia ls . P r e sid e n ts are busy m en and b eca u se part of th eir r e sp o n sib ility a s public se r v a n ts is rep ortin g to the p e o - ; pie through sp e e c h e s and w ritten sta te m e n ts, th is m ight be a fu ll-tim e j i and d isco u ra g in g job if they w ere fo r c e d to do a ll the w ord -w eigh in g and p en -ch ew in g c o m p o sitio n th e m s e lv e s . In the p r o c e s s of r h e to r ica l c r it ic is m , a c r itic m u st ev alu ate h is own p r o fe ssio n a l b ia s e s . N atu r a lly to a sp eech c r it ic , sp e e c h p rep aration i s , if not the m o st im p o r tant, a highly im portant part of e x ec u tiv e r e sp o n sib ility . H ow ever, in ligh t of the above points in d icatin g r e a so n s why a p r e sid e n t sim p ly cannot p e r so n a lly p rep are a ll of h is public co m m u n ica tio n , to ex p ect a p resid en t to do o th e r w ise d o es not in d ica te a c le a r p ercep tion of the p resid en cy in m odern tim e s . The R h eto r ic a l C ritic Should E valuate S p eech w ritin g in the C on text o f the C om p osition and D u ties o f a G iven P r e sid e n t's S p eech w ritin g Staff F ir s t , the s ia e of the P r e s id e n t's sta ff, the w r ite r s ' b a ck grou n d s, and how they a re lis te d on the W hite H ouse o rg a n iza tio n a l ch art should be a n a ly sed . A s in d icated in C hapter IV of th is stu dy, N ixon h a s a sta ff of w r ite r s o r g a n ise d under and d ir e c te d by P r ic e known a s the "W riting and Ite se a r c h D iv isio n ." N ix o n 's c o n su lta tio n s on sp ee ch w r itin g p o li- c in e a r s , l a x ih * I M « I pert, limited to P r ic e w ho. *.« d ir e c to r o f the 168 m ajor political con viction s, are fam iliar with Nixon's language sty le , i and do not try to act as presidential policy a d v iso rs or c o -d e c isio n - j m a k ers. As Huebner e x p r e sse d , "We are sp e c ia lists in g e n e ra liz a - j j tion" (B -235). | Kennedy sp eech w riter Ted Sorenson , on the other hand, was ! I so m e tim e s called Kennedy's alter ego. His relation sh ip s ran all the way from sp eech w riter to policy advisor to personal friend. The c r itic needs to know the backgrounds and p rofessio n al exp erien ce of the P re sid e n t's w riters if he is to analyze the role and function of I sp eech a ssista n ts. How c lo s e they are and what kind of a c c e ss do they have to the P r e sid e n t? Is it a K ennedy-Sorenson relationship, or a Nixon (c lo se ly shielded by H ald em an )-P rice and writing staff kind of j arran gem en t? The P re sid e n t's relation to his w riters is also revealed by knowing how the w riting assign m en ts o r ig in a te --o n a p e r so n -to per son b a s is, over the telephone (as was popular with L.BJ), to a key sp eech w riter, through a presid en tial aide, or just what method the P re sid e n t did prefer. N ext, the sp ecific duties a ssig n ed by the P resid en t to the w riters should be analyzed as follow s: 1. D oes the P resid en t regard his sp eech w riters as strictly sp ee ch w r ite rs, or does he look to them as policy ad visors a lso ? Nixon draws a clea r line betw een his policy a d v iso rs and his ^speech a d v iso rs. He does not want his sp eech w riters to advise him on m atters of policy, which m ay be contrasted with the adm ixture of the two functions in the R o o sev elt and Kennedy adm inistrations. R o o sev elt definitely looked to his speechw riting aides for a ssista n c e on policy m a tters. As M oley indicated, he and R o o sev elt "argued e n d le ssly over what the substance of a sp eech should be" (1939:343). 1 I Kennedy, like R o o sev elt, relied on sp eech w riters for counsel on policyj I d ecisio n s - -princip ally Sorenson. Kennedy com m ented, "In the end I ' found m y se lf relying m ore and m ore on Sorenson, who was with m e onj the cam paign tour and who, th erefo re, could react to and reflect up- | to -th e-m in u te ta ctical shifts in our basic policy" (Nixon, 1962:407). Sorenson , too, reflected this attitude when he observed: I wrote sp eech es in addition to m y involvem ent in the d e c is io n m aking p r o c e ss. There is great advantage in th is. You know the P re sid e n t's argum en ts, com m ents and ideas: how he wants to say it and why. . . . I had d irect a c c e ss to the P resid en t. . . . I could w rite a draft of the very words he wanted to say. (Bonafede, 1972:311) 2. What speechw riting r esp o n sib ilities are a ssign ed to the w riters ? S orenson rem ark ed , "We had a very sm a ll staff involved in w riting sp e e c h e s. L,BJ m ore than doubled it and P re sid e n t Nixon, I su sp ect, has tripled it" (Bonafede, 1972:311). On the face of it, this com m ent could be deceptive to the c r itic , in that he m ight suppose that Nixon, b ecause of the com p aratively la rg er siz e of his staff, was doing lle ss of his own thinking and w riting on sp ee ch es than Kennedy or LBJ. jH owever, the c ritic investigatin g the sp ecific r esp o n sib ilities of _ no- p resid en tia l w riting sta ffs would know that N ixon's sp ee ch w r ite rs are \ ch arged with the w riting of m o st, if not a ll, p resid en tia l non sp eech d ocu m en ts, including p r o c la m a tio n s, le tt e r s , ann oun cem en ts, d ir e c - i i i tiv e s , com m u n iq u es, m e s s a g e s to C o n g ress accom panying p ie ce s of execu tive le g isla tio n , and all of this in addition to their sp eech w ritin g 1 i r e sp o n s ib ilitie s . One su sp e c ts (only b eca u se it is not known for c e r - j I tain) that S oren son could not even have begun to undertake such a ■ I m am m oth task as the co n stru ctio n of a ll p resid en tia l com m u nication . ! | 3. What n on sp eech w ritin g r e sp o n s ib ilite s are a ssig n e d to j the w r ite r s ? T his inquiry for the c r itic is c lo s e ly a llied to the point just d is c u sse d . It c o n c e r n s what w ritten d o cu m en ts, if any, are the i w r ite r s ch arged with producing. How m uch of th eir tim e is devoted to i the w riting of nonspoken docum ents as com p ared to spoken d ocu m en ts? i A s H uebner noted: P erh ap s even m ore in te r e stin g and su rely m o r e tim e consu m in g [than the work they do as sp e e c h w r ite r s] is the w riting we do which ap p ears not a s an o r a l but as a w ritten p resid en tia l e x p r e s sion . There is far m o re of this m a ter ia l than I had p revio u sly r ea liz ed . (1970:2) The c r itic should in v estig a te not only w hether the P r e s id e n t's staff is involved in n on -sp ea k in g r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , but a lso sp e c ific a lly what kinds and to what d eg ree they a r e involved. What n on -sp eak in g d o cu m e n ts, if any, d o es the P r e sid e n t w rite h im se lf. At the tim e of th is I d isse r ta tio n , a p rovocative exam p le is the issu a n c e of a highly p e r - sonal position paper bv Nixon (May 22. 1973), explaining h is d e g r ee of in volvem en t in the W atergate A ffair. j 4. Who r e s e a r c h e s m o st of the w ritten or o r a l p resid en tial com m u n ication ? What r e se a r c h , if any, d oes the P re sid e n t do h im se lf? D oes the P re sid e n t have a r e se a r c h contingent as part of his White H ouse ! staff or do the w r ite r s do m o st of it? P r ic e , for ex a m p le, su p e r v ise s j i a r e se a r c h staff headed by B e llin g e r , who m ain tain s a sp eech filing sy s te m on e v er y sp ee ch or public appearance m ade by the P r e sid e n t i including sta tem en ts he m ade. D oes the P r e sid e n t whom the c r itic is studying have a s y s te m s im ila r to N ixon's o r is it d ifferen t? The R h eto rica l C ritic Should E valuate Speechw ritin g in the C ontext of the Staff's C ontributions to j the D ifferen t Types of P r e sid e n tia l Speaking f Im prom ptu S p eech es E v e ry p r e sid e n t of n e c e s s ity m ust speak im prom ptu on a c o n sid er a b le num ber of o c c a sio n s and this type of p resid en tia l speaking has been r ela tiv e ly n eg lected by rh eto rica l c r itic s . This w r ite r 's r e se a r c h su g g e s ts that a valuable study m ight be done in tercom paring the six m odern p resid en ts with regard to th eir im prom ptu speaking. Probably the m o st im portant o c c a sio n req uiring co n sid era b le im prom ptu speaking is the p resid en tia l p r e ss co n feren ce which w as origin ated by F D R , and has sin ce b ecom e an exp ected obligation of the p r e s id e n t by the p eople. P r io r to FD R , r e p o rter s w ere req uired to su bm it w ritten q u estio n s in advance; the p resid en t could then s e le c t ite m s and prepare h is r e p lie s . By co n tra st, R o o se v e lt held frequent ipress c o n fer en ce s w here a large num ber of r e p o rter s crow ded into his office and fire d q u estio n s o r a lly . R o o sev e lt apparently enjoyed this i kind of give and take and se e m e d to be ad m ired by m o st of the rep ort- ' e r s for his c o o p e r a tiv e n e ss with the p r e ss and his ability to thrust and parry. He u su ally indicated what a n sw e rs w ere for publication, what 1 l an sw ers w ere "off the record ," and rem a rk s that he so m e tim e s in ter- 1 | jected called "background sta tem en ts." This r e se a r c h e r found no e v i- i I dence that R o o se v e lt used h is brain tru st in any sy ste m a tic way to pre-i i pare him for th e se m e e tin g s. ! A ll subsequent p r e sid e n ts have follow ed R o o se v e lt's p recedent i and held p r e ss c o n fe r e n c e s. This w r ite r 's evid en ce su g g e sts that each p resid en t handled this duty in his own ind ividu alized way. F o r e x a m p le, it s e e m s fa ir ly w ell esta b lish ed that E isen h o w er often had d iffi c u ltie s with syntax or w ording, but by com m on con sen t the rep o rters a s s is te d the P r e sid e n t and avoided quoting anything verb atim u n le ss it w as g r a m m a tica lly accep tab le. I | Kennedy held frequent p r e s s c o n fe r e n c e s and had them t e l e vised . R eports indicate that he devoted so m e tim e im m ed ia tely p r e ceding each c o n fer en ce to preparation. H is way of p reparin g w as to jhave a group of h is a s s is ta n ts and a d v iso r s fire q u estion s at h im , i !w hich w ere lik ely to be s im ila r to qu estion s asked by the r ep o rter s. During the actual te le v is e d c o n fe r e n c e s, Kennedy usually adapted his 173 r e p lie s to the p articu lar wording used by his q u e stio n e r s, and the fam ed Kennedy wit was often stim u lated by unexpected qu estion s o r a r ep o rter 's way of wording a question. A s is w ell known, Nixon r e str ic te d the num ber of p r e ss c o n fe r e n c e s at which he p erso n a lly appeared and w as c r itic iz e d for this policy. At m o st of the regu lar White H ouse p r e ss c o n fe r e n c e s, Nixon d e leg a te s his p r e s s s e c r e ta r y , Z ie g le r , to be his sp okesm an . Another m ajor type of im prom ptu speaking situation o ccu rs in j i the d isch a rg e of what m ight be c a lled m inor c er em o n ia l d u ties. These! situations are num erous and varied , and req u ire m o stly ju st stan d ard ized rem a rk s. E x a m p les include awarding of m e d a ls, m eetin g im p o r tant d e leg a tio n s, White H ouse r e c ep tio n s, and the lik e. This author found no r e se a r c h to indicate the amount of p resid en tia l tim e c o n sum ed by th ese c e r e m o n ia l speaking d u ties, nor how the P r e sid e n t I handles this type of speaking. A pparently, Nixon r eq u e sts no help from his sp e e c h w r ite r s for th ese o c c a s io n s , but it is rep orted that [Johnson p r e fe rr e d , when p o ssib le , to speak from a prepared m an u sc rip t even when awarding a m ed al. F or N ixon, h o w ev er, im prom ptu speaking o c c a sio n s req uire no p articipation at all by any of the sp e e c h w r ite r s , and the sp ee ch is given by the P r e sid e n t without any p a r ticu lar preparation. There a re no m a n u scrip ts, n o te s, or ou tlin es written l | in advance of the sp eech . i i i 174 E xtem p oran eou s S p eech es j i In c o n tra st with m o st other m odern p r e sid e n ts. Nixon has p r e fer re d to d e liv e r extem p oran eou sly (as determ ined fro m the in terview s I with his w r ite rs and from the r e s e a r c h e r 's own observation) anyw here | i up to 75 or 80 percen t of his sp e e c h e s. The "menu" kind of a s s is ta n c e 1 i given by the w r ite r s , with the P r e sid e n t u su ally providing the m ain j thoughts and a rgu m en ts, w as d e sc rib ed in Chapter IV. H is policy on i extem p oran eou s speaking is that the sp eech is carefu lly prepared by | him in thought, but not in e x a ct w ords, and is usually d e liv e re d w ith- ! i out n otes. When Nixon r e c e iv e s m a te r ia ls d esign ed to prepare him ' for an extem poraneous sp eech , he conducts the balance of the p r e p a r a tion h im se lf. This is probably due to his d e b a te /la w y e r /1 'stump sp e a k ing" train in g, w here he drafts outlines on his yellow leg a l pads. His lability at taking m a te r ia ls subm itted and tran sform in g them into a cogen t, w e ll-str u c tu r e d p resen tation often a m a zes his w r ite r s . A s Gavin noted: The im portant thing about him is his ability to take a sen ten ce, phrase or som eth in g that you have put in and do an im p rovisatio n . He can do this and do it te r r ific a lly . I've se e n him do it. But nobody knows he is doing it. I'm am azed that no one has e v e r w ritten about th is. (B -259) U su a lly , Trum an w as at his b est when speaking e x te m p o r a n e ou sly. H is w r ite rs would prepare him for th e se o c c a sio n s by w riting ithe f ir s t d ra fts, after which other w r ite rs not involved in the p r e p a r a tion of that fir s t draft would take the m an u scrip t and go ov er it with Truman. He would then d iscard the prepared m anuscript and speak, as he called it, "off the cuff" (White and H enderlider, 1954:41). | Nixon's w riters prepare him for extem pore speaking o cca sio n s through an entirely different p roced u re--p erh ap s unique to him in the p r e si- i dency. They use a form at which includes a "fact sheet" and "suggeStecj rem arks" (supra, p. 133). A w riter m ight take se v er a l days to put j I this form at together, but Nixon, in glancing over this "menu" can quickly se le c t those item s he thinks m ight be used to g rea test advan- j tage. Like Truman, Nixon p refers to speak without notes. And this investigator has str e s se d that as much as 80 percent of Nixon's public 1 speaking is extem poraneous. Nixon fix es in his mind e sse n tia lly what he wants to sa y , the points he wants to m ake, and som e of the lin es he! wants to u se, and then speaks (P r ic e , B-209)- Nixon w riters alm ost i J never use the "com m ittee method" such as was so m e tim e s used by j iR o osevelt's brain tru st in preparing m a teria ls for an extem poraneous sp eech . U sually the w riters work alone on a given assignm ent; only occasion ally two or three work as a team . In reading previous th e se s and d isserta tio n s dealing with rh etorical c r itic ism of presidential speaking, this investigator noted that the data w ere largely or en tirely confined to a n a ly ses of public a d d re sses d elivered from m an u scrip ts. Little attention w as given to : a presid en t's extem poraneous sp eech es and the im portance of this 1 | n eglect is u n derscored by the p resen t study. It is clea r that if a 176 rh eto rica l c r itic does a study of N ixon's sp eech m ak in g, he m ust m ake a m ajor d e c isio n regarding the fact that the bulk of N ixon's speaking is ex tem p oran eou s, typically without even the u se of notes. Som e rh eto rica l c r it ic s have com plained that c r itic iz in g a i ! sp eech m an u scrip t has been m ade a lm o st futile b eca u se of the fact that| they do not know who com p osed the m an u scrip t in question. This com-i i plaint need not apply to Nixon. If a c r itic w ish es to study "the real Nixon speaking," he should se c u r e ta p e -re co r d in g s (or ty p e sc rip ts taken from tap es) of a sam pling of N ixon's a lm o st innum erable e x te m poraneous a d d r e s s e s , rather than rely upon the m o re read ily availab le i c o p ie s of N ixon's sp ee ch es that w ere read from m a n u scrip ts. M anuscript Sp eeches When Trum an knew that he would be speaking from a m anu sc r ip t, h is preparation was d ifferen t from h is extem p ore preparation. I He began by giving his staff an outline of what he g en era lly wanted to say. They then prepared a rough draft which w a s, with su cceed in g d ra fts, carefu lly d is c u sse d and r ev ise d in a s e r ie s of staff m ee tin g s. Nixon c a lls for polish ed drafts from his w riting staff but then f r e quently does not con su lt them further con cern in g the sp e e c h 's con stru ction . i R o o se v e lt, when he spoke from m an u scrip t, took m a te r ia ls from h is w r ite r s , retired to a study with a stenograph er and a sp e e c h - 177 w r ite r, and r e v ise d the sp ee ch into his own language. This w as done by re-d icta tin g paragraphs. FDR a lso often p racticed aloud and, for his F ir e s id e Chats via radio, had a sm a ll group of frien d s as a "studio audience." Nixon a lso u tiliz e s sp eech w riter drafts in m uch the sa m e i I I j way, excep t that he d oes not appear to rely on the sp e e c h w r ite r 's j i ! drafts in the final outcom e as m uch a s R o o sev e lt, or for that m a tter, ' • ' i any of the other m odern p resid en ts did. Instead, Nixon u s e s a yellow ; pad to gather and m ake notes and orga n ize id e a s, then d icta tes a draft ! to his s e c r e ta r y . AIL of his w r ite r s indicate that he w orks on m anu scrip t sp e e c h e s of sp e c ia l im portance a lm o st e n tirely alon e, usu ally at the se c lu sio n of C am p David. I I At the tim e of this w riting, the W atergate A ffair had p r o g r e sse d to the point that the Senate S elect C om m ittee w as in the second w eek of its h ea rin g s. At this point, the C om m ittee C hairm an, Senator Sam lErvin (D -N .C . ) stated that no "com petent" ev id en ce had been given proving that the P re sid e n t waB d irectly involved in eith er having ad vance knowledge of or planning the b r e a k -in of D em o cra tic National C om m ittee headquarters (for which se v e n m en had been convicted), nor the alleged attem pts to "cover up" White House know ledge of the c r im e s . E rvin explain ed that testim o n y on White H ouse in volvem en t jwas h e a r sa y only. T his r e se a r c h e r should s t r e s s the fa ct that in sp ite of future develop m en ts regard in g N ixon's in volvem en t, the findings of this study w ill be unaffected. T his study does not undertake to evaluate N ixon's p o litica l or p erson al a c tiv itie s , d e c is io n s , p o lic ie s , j or e th ic s. This study is focu sed on N ixon's sp eech w ritin g p o lic ie s, 'p ra ctices, and p r o c ed u r es, and on that only. A s p rev io u sly rep orted j in the above paragraph, N ixon's m o st im portant m an u scrip t sp eech as : of this date (the W atergate sp ee ch of May 12, 1973) sim p ly rein fo r ce s this r e s e a r c h e r 's p reviou s findings and co n c lu sio n s (su p r a , p. 145). i In p a rticu lar, it adds to the point p rev io u sly rep orted that on e x tr em e ly im portant s p e e c h e s , Nixon c u sto m a r ily tr ie s to sch ed u le a few days of j i rela tiv e se c lu sio n during w hich, for p ra ctica l p u rp o se s, he c o m p o se s i i the sp ee ch a lm o st en tirely by h im se lf. H ow ever, it should not be a s - ( sum ed that Nixon fo llow s a regu lar sy s te m in using m a te r ia ls from his w r ite r s . Not only is th ere great flex ib ility , but there is wide v a r ia - \ tion am ong the individual w r ite r s in th eir w ays of preparin g a sp eech draft fo r N ixon. F or ex a m p le, he dom in ates both the content and language of his m a n u scrip t sp e e c h e s (su p r a , pp. 154-155) by c o n tro llin g what he c a lls for from his w r ite r s , and how m uch of their I | m a te r ia ls he u s e s . On the other hand, K ennedy's m an u scrip t preparation w as d if feren t from N ixon's. W henever S oren son brought in a m a n u scrip t for K ennedy's rea ctio n , they engaged in long period s o f editing, c o lla b o - : ration , and rew ritin g togeth er up to the final hour of d e liv e ry (G olden, | 1966:352). Knowing th e se d iffe re n c es is vital to the c r itic . Knowing l i | what the presid en t d oes with m a te r ia ls subm itted by the sp ee c h w r ite r s 179 p erm its a c r itic to know how m uch of the sp eech is lik ely to be origin al com p ositio n by the p resid en t and how m uch is a co m p o site of s p e e c h w riter drafts. | The c r itic , by knowing the role sp ee ch w r ite rs play in the p resi* dent's m an u scrip t preparation , can evalu ate to som e d eg ree sp e e c h - i j w r ite r s' influence on p resid en tia l m an u scrip t drafts. He should know j i | what kinds of drafts the w r ite r s s u b m it--a r e they en tire d ra fts, bits i and p ie c e s of inform ation , or o u tlin e s? What is the p r e sid e n t's p e r - j sonal in volvem en t and how d oes this c o r r e la te with the w r ite r s' in v o lv em en t? Who co n stru cts the argum en ts and fo rm s of proof? Who is exp ected to p olish sty le ? To what d eg ree does the p r e sid e n t dom inate content and language u sa g e ? Is th ere a "typical" way m a n u scrip ts are J prepared for a given p resid en t, or does the p r o c e ss v a ry ? What speak- i ling o c c a sio n s typify the u se of a m an u scrip t o ver the other two types oi I sp eak in g? Nixon, for exam p le, r e s tr ic ts his use of m an u scrip t sp ea k ing to th ose o c c a sio n s w here this m ode of public a d d re ss is p ra ctica lly m andatory, e. g. , an accep tan ce of nom ination sp e e c h , an inaugural a d d r e ss, a te le v is io n sp eech con cern in g international p o licy , and the lik e . A gain the point should be s tr e s s e d that in the c a s e o f Nixon (and probably a lso in the c a s e of R o o se v e lt, and p o ssib ly in the c a s e of one or m ore m od ern p r e sid e n ts), sp e e c h e s read from m an u scrip t are i atypical of the bulk of the P r e sid e n t's sp eech m aking. M anuscripts of j 180 Nixon speaking extem poraneously without notes may or may not be the sam e as Nixon reading from the printed page. Certainly Truman's j extem pore speaking differed noticeably from his reading from m anu- j i scrip ts. 1 i One way of sum m arizing the above d iscu ssio n is presented as i Table 1. This "profile" would be quite different from "profiles" of i i i other modern presidents, and suggests guidelines for choosing or e r e - i I ating appropriate rhetorical approaches. ' I The Rhetorical Critic Should Evaluate Speechwriting i in the Context of the P residency as an "Institution" \ I The "institution" of the presidency is exactly as old as the j i ! presidency itself. At any point in history the presidency is presided , i over by an elected person serving the institution by carrying out Con- jgressional p olicies and judicial m andates. There have been as many idifferent points of view on how to run this institution as there have been presidents. H owever, recent presidents have been forced by con stantly expanding duties to be concerned with budgeting their tim e and making the m ost efficient use of their staffs so that the presidency would function sm oothly. This has demanded delegation of resp o n si bilities with staff m em bers and a ssistan ts being brought in to preside over certain areas and carry out a variety of assign m en ts. Just as presidents have always had assistan ts who conducted business for them , so m odern presidents also have assistan ts who nm I i TABLE 1 ! DEGREES AND TYPES OF SPEECHWRITERS' ASSISTANCE TO PRESIDENT NIXON Type of Speech Speechw riter Contribution P re sid e n t's Contribution Impromptu None All Extem poraneous 1. A "fact sheet" 2. A lis t of "sug gested rem arks" 1. C h ooses the m ain points. 2. Incorporates from few to many form s of su p port su ggested by the w r ite r s . 3. Words the speech as he ex tem p o rizes it. M anuscript a. Ordinary im portance b. Special impo rtance 1. One or m ore drafts of sp eech es or parts thereof. 2. R evision of drafts in accordance with the P resid en t's annotation. 1. U sually the sam e as for those of ordinary s i g nificance. 2. O ccasionally none 1. G ives initial in s tr u c tions of what he wants done. S om etim es in the form of an outline, occasion ally a lm o st a com plete fir st draft. 2. E diting, r e v isin g , annotating drafts r e ceived from w r ite rs. 3. Editing and revisin g final draft. 4. D elivery of the draft. 1. Radical rev isio n of subm itted m an u scrip ts. 2. S om etim es w rites and r e v ise s entire m anu scrip t help them . But as the "institution" of the presidency has grown in < ' | com p lexity, so the number of a ssista n ts has grown. As the resp on- j sib ilitie s for w ritten and oral com m unication have in creased in the p resid en cy, so also has the need for sp eech a ssista n ce grown. Thus, m odern sp eech w riters se rv e the institution of the presidency by r e liev in g the presid en t of m uch of the routine surrounding executive com m unication. P rice indicated that there are many w ritten m a teria ls going out of the White House on which Nixon does not have to function at all (B -213). B ecau se his w riting staff has often worked with his i policy among various departm ents and a g e n c ie s, they can prepare and subm it w ritten drafts without the P resid en t being personally involved, j They do this as a m atter of organizational expediency, se r v ic e to the !"institution," and also to the P resid en t. Nixon made the point this ;way: If som ebody here can do it better, he does. Now G rover C le v e land read every bill that cam e before him . These days you can't. You'd go blind, th ere are so many. He'd rather do som ething poorly h im se lf than som ebody e ls e do it w ell. I am the r ev e rse . But I m ake all the im portant d e c isio n s, d om estic or foreign. And when m ajor d ecisio n s are involved, 1 put everything e ls e out of m y mind. {Pett, 1973:16) The institution of the presidency has developed to the point today w here the public expectations and legal requirem ents of the office sim ply demand an institutional approach. R h etorical c r itic s ■ m u st analyze the extent to which leg isla tiv e enactm ent of laws or I j judicial m andates require w riting, r ese a r c h , and consultation in I 183 \ order to be executed. N either the jud icial nor leg isla tiv e branches i intend that all of these w riting, rese a rc h , and consultation tasks be undertaken by the presid en t h im self. R ather, they are task s to be | i r accom plish ed by the institution of the presidency through the coop era- r tion and a ssista n c e of m any aid es, including sp eech w riters. The pres-t i i ident's m o st im portant resp on sib ility, th erefo re, is to se r v e the peo- ; pie by servin g the institution of which he is a m em b er and tem p orarily j leader and chief spokesm an. This is b est accom plish ed through j I d ecision -m ak in g and delegation of shared resp on sib ility to oth ers. I There are som e c r itic s who m aintain that presidential sp eech - 1 i i writing is som ehow unethical, that the cen tral question of presidential | speechw riting s e e m s to hinge on its eth icality. Surely, what sp ee ch - j j 'writing needs is to be put into proper p ersp ective in com p arison with the m ultiplicity of other presid en tial obligations and r esp o n sib ilities, i 'This p ersp ectiv e dem onstrates that the issu e of presidential sp eech - l writing is a question, or s e r ie s of q u estion s, the answ er(s) to which the rhetorical c ritic should te s t and/or prove, not assu m e. Such a question for an investigating critic m ight not be whether presidential sp eech w riters are used , but in what ways they are used. In seeking an answ er to this question, the critic could m ake eth ical judgm ents based Ion his fin d in gs, not on his or som eone e ls e 's presum ptions about the ethicality of speechw riting. As Smith wrote: It is im p o ssib le to co n ceiv e that m en who occupy p osition s of in stitutional lea d ersh ip eith er could or should take the tim e to o r ig inate the sc r ip ts for all of their public pronouncem ents. . . . I question the tendency of so m e to im ply that th ere is a m o ra l p ro b lem involved in an activity as e s s e n tia l and inevitable as that of ghost w riting. Som e p erson s approach the reality of ghost w riting j with the m incing nobility which o cca sio n ed M argaret F u lle r's favorite u ttera n ce, "I accept the u n iv er se ." It m ay w ell be that | they r e c a ll Thom as C a r ly le 's com m en t upon hearing th is. "Gad," j he stated , "She'd better ! " (1956:19) E ach day, Buchanan p rep ares a new s su m m ary for the F r e s i- i dent, which r e lie v e s Nixon of the resp o n sib ility of reading all the n e w s papers req uired to provide him with broad ex p o su re. In a s e n s e , then, the P r e sid e n t has "ghost read ers" in Buchanan and his staff. How- j i e v e r , view ing the P r e sid e n t as the lead er of the p resid en tial in stitu tion h elp s one to r e a liz e that for Nixon to read and sy n th esize what is now a fu ll-tim e job for Buchanan and se v e r a l aid es is hardly fea sib le I | in te r m s of the P r e sid e n t's other r e sp o n sib ilitie s. i There is no is s u e regarding the eth icality of p resid en tia l f i sp eech w ritin g in the m inds of anyone except a handful of rh etorical i c ritic s. The c r itic m ay ex p lo re a p re sid e n t's eth ics in the p rep a ra- i | jtion of a particu lar sp eech , but the burden of proof m u st r e st with the c ritic to dem on strate that som e action , eith er on the part of the p r e s i dent or a sp e e c h w r ite r , w as eth ically qu estion able. In F D R 's D e c la ration of War sp eech , for ex a m p le, the phrase "a day that w ill liv e in infam y" m ay or m ay not have been w ritten by so m eo n e e ls e . No m a t- I ‘ter who coin ed the ph rase or any other part of the sp eech , they w ere 185 serv in g the institution of the p resid en cy by crea tin g the m o st e ffe ctiv e j ] w ording p o s sib le . To say that b eca u se som eon e e ls e m ay have coined the phrase and, th e re fo re , the P r e sid e n t should not have used it, m eans that a w eaker p h r a s e --a phrase thought up by a P resid en t p re- ; occupied with consu ltation and d ecisio n -m a k in g about im m inent w a r -- ! j should have been u sed on the grounds that it would be unethical for i R o o sev e lt to use so m eon e e ls e ' s ph rase u n less he included proper | acknow ledgm ent of the so u rc e. P re su m a b ly , R o o se v e lt should have ! said , "D ecem b er 7th, 1941- - a day that w ill liv e in infam y, to borrow \ a phrase from one of my a s s is ta n ts , M r. X." This r e s e a r c h e r 's th e sis is that R o o se v e lt's duty as sp ok esm an for the o ffice of the p res-| idency req uired h im to give a fo rm al rep ort on P e a r l H arbor and to j req u est a d eclaration of w ar from C o n g ress and that in p erform ing that duty he should sp eak , not as an individual, but as sp ok esm an for i the institution of the p resid en cy. F or him to have refu sed to accept | the eloquent ph rase fro m another m em b er of that institution would have been d e r elic tio n of his duty. That D eclaration of War sp eech should have been the fin e st sp eech that R o o se v e lt and o th ers serv in g the office of the p resid en cy w ere capable of producing. This w as not an in d iv i dual e x p r e ssin g his p erson al view s; this w as the P r e sid e n t speaking. An opposing th e sis is defended by B o r m a n --th e sa m e concept |and s im p listic "rules" of eth ics required of undergraduate sp eech j students are equally appropriate for the p resid en t and all other sp ea k er s. H is concluding paragraph is as follow s: I i What of the student o ra tor with a ste rlin g topic and a stirrin g d eliv ery but who cannot s e e m to m ake the w ords flow or the sp eech fit to g eth er? Can the fo r e n sic d irecto r run it through h is i typ ew riter s e v e r a l tim e s ju st to se e how it w ill sound? If we im - I pose an eth ica l standard on our students and on o u r s e lv e s - - if we b e lie v e in the im portance of sp eech , we m u st im p o se eth ical ! standards upon stu d en ts, upon the p resid en t of the United S ta tes, upon the p resid en t of our c o lle g e o r u n iv er sity , upon our g o v e r n or, upon ev ery on e who p r e sen ts h im se lf and h is id eas to an i audience for its a ccep tan ce. (1961:267) 1 When Nixon w as a teen a g er at W hittier C o lle g e , he participated i in in te rc o lle g ia te d eb ates. The purpose of such training i s , of c o u r se , to d evelop the student's ability in lo g ic a l thinking and the e x te m p o r iz - j I ing of his thoughts in his own w ords. D ebate c o a c h e s and judges | I usually p en alize the u se of "canned sp eech es" and they are str ic t in j enforcing the rule that the so u rce of all quoted m a te r ia ls m u st be .acknow ledged. In this sp ee ch -tra in in g context, the eth ical and p r a c ti c a l c r ite r ia are of n e c e s s ity fo cu sed on the student as an individual. When one co m p a res Nixon speaking as a tee n a g e r with Nixon speaking < ; j as the P re sid e n t of the United S ta tes, the change in the two contexts r e v e r s e s the eth ica l req u irem en ts. In the la tter c a s e , it is unethical for him to act as sp ok esm an only fo r h im se lf rath er than as s p o k e s m an for the o ffice of the p resid en cy . In the latter c a se a lso , it would be unethical if he attem pted the im p o ssib le ta sk of doing the sa m e kind i i I of reading and r e s e a r c h that he once did in preparation for an in te r c o lleg ia te debate, b ecau se those hours of r e se a r c h would req uire the j 187 1 I jneglect of other m o re im portant p resid en tia l d u ties. An im portant d istin ction m ust be drawn at this point betw een Nixon as P re sid e n t and Nixon as a candidate of his p o litical party. N ixon's r e str ic te d num ber of cam paign sp e e c h e s in 1972 w ere of c o u rse c le a r ly labeled a s such. I In th ese s p e e c h e s , Nixon was sim u ltan eou sly sp okesm an for h im se lf | and sp ok esm an for the R epublican P arty. T his lead s to the third role ; j o f any incum bent p r e s id e n t--s o m e of his p resid en tia l sp e e c h e s m ay l rightly be view ed as in d irect cam paigning in advance for h im se lf and/ ' o r his party. F or ex a m p le, N ixon's sp eech reporting the a c c o m - ' p lish m en ts of his M oscow Sum m it M eeting (June 1, 1972) w as unques- | | tionably a required s e r v ic e to the o ffice of the p resid en cy , although at j i the sa m e tim e it certain ly w as an im portant contribution to the national .Republican r ee le ctio n cam paign which w as already underw ay. This dual e ffe ct of the sp eech is an inevitab le con seq u en ce of being an in cum bent p resid en t, and it is b a sic a lly a c o m p lete ly leg itim a te form of in d irect cam paigning in advance of the next m ajor e le ctio n . T his type !of sp eech allow s the rh eto rica l c ritic to provide one of h is m o st s ig - i nificant contrib utions. F ro m the standpoint of e th ic s , N ixon's M oscow sp ee ch should have been d ir e c t ev id en ce of h is dedication to h is duty as sp ok esm an of the institution of the p resid en cy reporting to the en tire A m erican public; its contribution to the com in g p o litica l cam paign | should have been in d irect and incid en tal. The task of the rh eto rica l c r itic is to d eterm in e w hether the P r e sid e n t su cceed ed or fa ile d to 188 im eet the c r ite r io n d e sc rib ed in the preced in g sen ten ce. This is a task that req u ires ob jectivity and se n sitiv ity b ased upon a substantial b a ck ground of rh eto rica l training and a n alytica l insigh t. Sum m ary and C on clu sion s i The a n a ly sis of p resid en tia l sp eech w ritin g in this chapter is j b eliev ed to ju stify the follow ing con clu sion s: 1. The rh e to r ica l c r itic should substitute the word " sp eech - I w riter for " gh ostw riter." ^ 2. The rh eto rica l c r itic m ust view p resid en tia l sp eech w ritin g j in the context of the totality of p resid en tial r e sp o n sib ilitie s and w ork- : i i load. a. The sh e e r volum e of m a te r ia ls that a p resid en t is ! required to p resen t in eith er o r a l or w ritten form m ak es it a p h y sical i I im p o ssib ility for one m an to p erform the en tire task alone. b. The r e se a r c h on the variety of top ics on which the ; I presid en t sp eak s o r is s u e s sta tem en ts is e x te n siv e . ! c. M ost p resid en tial docum ents do not req u ire or d eserve p erso n a l p resid en tia l treatm en t, d. T here are p resid en tia l duties of higher p riority than the w riting of m o st sp e e c h e s or other docum ents. 3. The rh e to r ica l c r itic should evalu ate sp eech w ritin g in the • l I * context o f the co m p o sitio n and du ties of a given p r e sid e n t's sp e e c h - w ritin g staff. _____________________________________________________________ 1 a. The s iz e of the p r e sid e n t's staff, the w r ite r s' b ack grounds, and how they are listed on the White H ouse organizational chart should be analyzed. b. The sp e c ific duties a ssig n ed by the p resid en t to the ^writers should be analyzed. 4. The r h e to r ica l c r itic should evalu ate sp eech w ritin g in the i context of the sta ff's contributions to the d ifferen t types of p resid en tial l ■ speaking. a. Im prom ptu sp e e c h e s b. E xtem p oran eou s sp e e c h e s c. M anuscript sp e e c h e s 5. The rh eto rica l c r itic should evalu ate sp eech w ritin g in the j context o f the p r e sid e n c y a s an "institution." CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Sum m ary i P u rp ose of the Study i The p u rp oses of this study w ere: , I 1. To d eterm in e the e x iste n c e and g en era l nature of sp e e c h - | w riting ("ghostw riting") am ong p resid en ts of the United S tates - -e s p e c ia lly recen t on es - - in o rd er to e sta b lish b ack ground and context as a b a sis for co m p a riso n s betw een th ese fo r m e r p resid en ts and R ichard M. Nixon. 2. To d e sc r ib e N ixon's p o lic ie s and p r a c tic e s regulating the use of sp eech w ritin g in p resid en tial s p e e c h e s , 1968-1972. ' ; I 3. To evalu ate the influence of m odern p resid en tia l sp eech - w riting on the task s of rh etorical c r itic is m . i j i I 'R eview of the L iterature F or the p u rp oses of secu rin g background and context and a lso j jof esta b lish in g the "frontier of knowledge" relev a n t to m odern p r e s i- idential sp eech w ritin g ("ghostw riting"), a period of se v e r a l m onths was devoted to accum ulating and reading a bibliography of se v e r a l hundred ite m s. The m o st sa lien t d is c o v e r ie s w ere that the bulk of the lite r a - jture, both popular and sc h o la r ly , dealt with the e th ics of the p ra ctice i i i I 190 191 (usually in a sim p listic and hypothetical way); only a sm a ll percentage j of the literatu re provided first-h an d inform ation regarding what is ( actually done by presidents or other prom inent national fig u r e s--n o in-depth study in the form of a th e sis or d isserta tio n was found. D esign of the Study j In gen eral, the design of the study was (1) to give a h istorical overview of presidential ghostw riting (h istorical method); (2) to pro- i vide a description of the extent, nature, and functions of the Nixon 1 speechw riting p o licie s and p ra ctices, 1968-1972 (em p irical method); j I and (3) to a s s e s s the im pact and rhetorical im plications that sp eech - j writing p resen ts to rhetorical sch o lars of future presidential a d d resses j(critical method). In review ing h isto rica l evidence of speechw riting p olicies of I |previous p resid en ts, the r ese a rc h e r found that the use of sp e e c h w riters w as rather dram atically placed in the spotlight by Franklin D. R oosevelt in his num erous rem arks regarding his brain trust. T here- l fo re, for purposes of this study, the period beginning with R oosevelt was given em p h asis and labeled as the beginning of ''modern" p r e s i d en cies. H istorical evidence relevant to presidential speaking for the period from George Washington through H erbert H oover w as gathered only for the purpose of making a rough estim ate of the prevalence of ispeechw riting. H istorica l m a teria ls dealing with the m odern p r e si- | d e n ts--R o o se v e lt. Truman. E isenh ow er, Kennedy, and J oh n son --w ere I 192 I r e str ic te d to two points: (1) the e x iste n c e of sp eech w ritin g a s s is ta n ts , | and (2) the m ajor a n d /o r unusual c h a r a c te r is tic s of each p resid en t's j » usage of sp e e c h w r ite r s. T hese data w ere u sed to c la r ify N ixon's ■ p o licie s by co m p a riso n or con trast. In r ese a r c h in g in detail the sp eech w ritin g p o lic ie s and p ra c- j tic e s of R ichard N ixon's fir s t P re sid e n tia l te r m , an attem pt w as m ade to rev iew all relevan t published m a te r ia ls . H ow ever, the princip al j r e se a r c h technique used w as p erson al in terv iew s. The r e se a r c h e r j | conducted ta p e -r e c o r d e d in terv iew s with six Nixon sp e e c h w r ite r s. In j preparing for th e se in te r v ie w s, a g en era l fram ew ork w as en visio n ed , tracin g the s p e e c h w r ite r s 1 work from the P r e sid e n t's in itial req u est through intervening step s up to the tim e of ora l d e liv e r y . Within th is fra m ew o rk , a lis t of sp e c ific qu estion s to be u sed when n e c e s s a r y as ^stimulators w as a lso prepared and p r a c tic a lly com m itted to m em o ry i (se e Appendix A). B efore and after the in terview data w ere c o lle c te d , s e v e r a l te s ts w ere planned for the pu rp ose of estim a tin g the relia b ility and validity of the a n sw e rs given by the in te r v ie w e e s. The application of th ese te s ts ind icated that the sp ee ch w r ite rs had a n sw ered with fran k n ess and a deHire to provide a r e a lis tic and accu rate account of th eir duties and r e sp o n s ib ilitie s . The in v estig a to r then sought to isyn th esize all of the above data into a d e sc r ip tiv e account of N ixon's i W riting and R e se a r c h D iv isio n lik ely to be u sefu l for rh e to r ica l c r itic s . 193 F in a lly , the r e se a r c h e r undertook to accom p lish the third pur-j i pose of the in vestigation by c r itic a l evaluation of all the h is to r ic a l and d e sc rip tiv e data, using as his princip al guideline the question, "What should a rh eto rica l c ritic of any m odern p resid en t's speaking do about the fact that ex ten siv e u se of sp e e c h w r ite r s is an e sse n tia l c h a r a c te r - ; istic of e v e r y p resid en t's sp eech preparation ?" C on clusions B ased upon the data and within the lim its of the d esign of this j study, the follow ing co n clu sio n s se e m justified: I I i R elevant to H isto rica l j Background and Context 1. A m erican p resid en tia l ghostw riting began with G eorge : W ashington. I ! 2. M ost, p o ssib ly all, p resid en ts have u tilized gh o stw riters ! j in varying w ays and to d ifferen t ex ten ts. i 3. F ro m the tim e of G eorge W ashington until the 1930s, c o n trib u tor! to the preparation of p resid en tia l sp e e c h e s w ere o c ca sio n a lly I I acknow ledged, but u su ally they rem ained anonym ous. 4. During the fir s t term of P r e sid e n t F ranklin D. R o o sev e lt, the e x iste n c e of what he c a lled h is "brain trust" and its fun ctions, which included variou s kinds of a s s is ta n c e in F D R 's sp eech p rep a ra- i tion, w ere openly acknow ledged and w idely publicized. 5. The policy of public acknow ledgm ent of the u tilization of i p resid en tia l sp ee c h w r ite r s w as continued by P r e sid e n ts Trum an, j E isen h o w er, Kennedy, and Johnson. 6. Sufficient first-h a n d inform ation w as se c u r e d on N ixon's five im m ed iate p r e d e c e s s o r s , showing unique or m ajor c h a r a c te r is - j tic s in the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s e s of each , to provide for gen eral co m p a riso n s and co n tra st am ong them relevan t to P r e sid e n t Nixon. | i ! R elevan t to D escrip tio n of Nixon Speechw riting P o lic ie s and P r a c tic e s I i i 7. Nixon draw s a c le a r line betw een his policy a d v iso rs and j his sp eech a d v iso r s. This m ay be co n tra sted with the adm ixture of thej j i two functions in c a s e s such as F ranklin R o o sev e lt and his brain tru st, or the collab oration of Kennedy and Sorenson . 8. N ixon's consu ltation s on sp eech w ritin g p o lic ie s a re for the I I m o st part lim ited to Ray P r ic e who, as head of the staff, rela y s in fo r m ation and in stru ction s to the other w r ite r s . H ow ever, there are o c ca sio n a l ex cep tio n s. 9. An o verw h elm in g m ajority of N ixon's public sp e e c h e s are ex tem p o ra n eo u s, without m an u scrip t, and usu ally without even notes. No other m odern p resid en t has reduced the p ercen ta g e of m an u scrip t sp e e c h e s to this Nixon m in im u m , e . g . , E isen h o w er and Johnson p r e fe r r e d to read verb atim from a text in a la r g e m a jo rity of th eir p r e s i dential addrenm . _ _ _ _ _ 195 ! 10. N ixon's extem poraneous sp e e c h e s a r e, h o w ev er, ca refu lly : i planned and prepared. During this preparation, he c u sto m a r ily r e q u ires two kinds of a ss is ta n c e from h is w riters: i a. A "fact sheet" co m p risin g a lis t of potentially useful ite m s of inform ation regarding the audience and the o c c a sio n , including r e m in d er s of any sp e e c h e s he mayj have m ade p rev io u sly to this particu lar group or in | this particu lar geographic location. b. A lis t called "rem arks" c o m p risin g potentially u sefu l a n ecd o tes, slo g a n s, quotable q u otes, unusual Btatis - tic s , punch lin e s , p a ra b les, and so on. Nixon reads ' th ese l is t s , looking for what he c a lls "nuggets" which . he m ay o r m ay not w eave into h is extem p oran eou s J sp eech . j i 11. M ost of the sp eech w ritin g a s s is ta n c e r ec eiv ed by Nixon is j the type d e sc rib ed im m ed ia tely above, and the preparation of such i i m a ter ia ls op eration ally d efin es the "speechw ritin g" function w hich is the m o st typ ical in N ixon ’s staff. It is a lso tim e -c o n s u m in g --in p r e - i |paring a "fact sheet" and list of perhaps 15 to 20 " rem ark s," a w riter m ay spend s e v e r a l days r ese a r c h in g , thinking, and c o m p o sin g . [ 1 2 . Nixon r e s tr ic ts his u se of public a d d r e ss e s read verb atim from m an u scrip t to th ose o c c a sio n s w here this m ode of public a d d ress is p ra ctica lly m andatory, e.g. , an accep tan ce of nom ination sp eech , an inaugural a d d r e ss, a te le v is io n sp eech announcing a new in te r national p olicy, and the like. 13. The p r o c e ss of preparing m an u scrip t sp e e c h e s i s , of c o u r se , quite d ifferen t fro m that d e sc r ib e d above for extem p oran eou s sp e e c h e s . U su ally Nixon req u ire s one or m ore co m p lete drafts from j I his w r ite r s . H ow ever, he d oes not in th e se c a s e s follow a regu lar j sy ste m . T here is great flex ib ility in N ixon's ways of using a ss is ta n c e j i from his w riting staff. And there is wide variation am ong individual w r ite r s in th eir w ays of preparing a sp eech draft. The Nixon p r o c e- j du res m ay be co n tra sted with the a s s e m b ly -lin e approach a s developedj ! by Trum an for what he ca lled "form al" sp e e c h e s. 14. Nixon dom in ates both the content and language of h is ! m an u scrip t sp e e c h e s . He does this in s e v e r a l typ ical ways: ! I a. He sends down what he c a lls an "outline" which is j lik ely to be a lm o st a co m p lete draft; the w riter finds ] that about all he can do is tinker with the m a n u scrip t, j m aking m in or changes (which m ay w ell be d i s r e garded). | b. Nixon sen d s down a g e n e ra l d ir e c tiv e and req u ests one o r s e v e r a l drafts by d ifferen t w r ite rs; he m ay provide no feedback; the w r ite r s m u st w ait lik e everyon e e ls e to find out what he finally s a y s . c. N ixon sen d s down a g en era l d ir e c tiv e and req u ests a full draft; he m ay return th is draft with m ajor d e le tions and su g g estio n s in the m a rg in s for r e v isio n s. d. In any of the above in sta n c e s, Nixon is lik ely to r e v ise so m e o n e 's wording of an ite m and the w r ite r is am azed at how neatly he h as im p roved upon what the w riter thought w as a "nugget." e. On rare o c c a sio n s of sp e c ia l im p ortan ce, N ixon m ay r e tir e to C am p David (or e ls e w h e r e ) for two or three d ays and (with h is y ello w le g a l pads and a dictating m ach ine) c o m p o se the e n tire sp eech . This p ra ctice ap p ears to have been used on a few o c c a sio n s by Kennedy; apparently n ev er u sed by E isen h o w er, T rum an, or Johnson; ev id en ce is in c o n c lu siv e r e g a r d ing R o o se v e lt. ! 15. The w id esp read notion that a sp eech w riter sp ends h is tim e p rep arin g m a n u scrip ts of sp e e c h e s that are read a lm o st verb atim by a i p r e sid e n t is m a s s iv e ly in a ccu ra te when applied to the w ritin g sta ff of i P r e sid e n t N ixon. The m o st ty p ica l r o le of N ixon 's w r ite r s is d e sc r ib e ^ I iin Item 11, above. Much l e s s ty p ica l is the ro le of w ritin g co m p lete j sp eech d rafts. j 16. N ixon 's o r g a n iza tio n a l ch art for the variou s e x ec u tiv e d e - j p artm en ts and d iv isio n s in d ic a tes that he p r e fe r s to c e n tr a liz e s e v e r a l. i w ritin g and r ela ted fu n ctions into a sin g le a d m in istra tiv e unit, the sco p e of w hich is in d icated by its title , "W riting and R e se a r c h D iv i- j sion ." T his m ean s that s e v e r a l n o n -sp ee ch w r itin g fu n ctions w ere ! sh ifted fro m other a d m in istra tiv e u n its. T h ese n o n -sp ee ch w r itin g d u ties in clu de the p rep aration of p r o c la m a tio n s, e x ec u tiv e o r d e r s , w ritten m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e ss, and oth er m a te r ia ls that are n ev er p resen ted o r a lly . N ixon's w r ite r s rep o rt that th e se n o n -sp ee ch w r itin g d u ties occupy m o re than h alf of th eir w orking h ou rs. 17. The rela tio n sh ip s am ong the m em b e r s of the d iv isio n appear c o m p lete ly n o n -b u rea u cra tic. Both the p r e se n t and the fo rm er head of the group rem ark ed that they op erated som ew h at lik e the ise n io r p artn er of a la rg e law fir m . 18. The sta ff a lm o st n ev er u s e s the " com m ittee m ethod" (su ch | 198 ias w as so m e tim e s u sed by R o o s e v e lt's b rain tru st) in p rep arin g m a te r ia ls fo r a sp ee ch . U su a lly , a m em b er w orks alon e on a given a s s ig n m en t; o c c a sio n a lly two or th ree w ork as a team . 19. The c o m p o sitio n of the sta ff is c o n siste n t w ith the N ixon ■ ! con cep t of how to u tiliz e a s s is ta n c e on h is n e c e s s a r y w ritin g d u ties. ! iOnly one m em b er w as c h o sen from the ranks of p r o fe ssio n a l sp e e c h - w r ite r s (M cD onald). Only one had su b sta n tia l u n iv e r sity train in g in j sp eech com m u n ication (H uebner) . No two m em b e r s had the sa m e j s p e c ific s in th e ir b ackgroun ds. H ow ever, a ll are in te llig e n t, a ll can w rite w ell (ran ging perhaps fro m good to e x c e lle n t), a ll of them a g ree w ith m o st of N ixon 's m ajor p o litic a l c o n v ic tio n s, a ll of them are f a m ilia r w ith N ixon 's language s ty le , and none of them try to act as j p r e sid e n tia l p o licy a d v iso r s or c o -d e c is io n -m a k e r s . I i 20. C o n clu sio n s regard in g the to ta l g e sta lt of N ixon 's w ritin g ! ! i sta ff and h is u se of th e ir m a te r ia ls cannot be g e n e r a liz e d to any o th er ( I 'p r e sid e n t, e x ce p t perhaps in one m ajor resp ect: e v en though no s y s tem a tic r e s e a r c h fo cu se d on the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s e s of F ran k lin [D. R o o se v e lt, Trum an, E ise n h o w e r , K ennedy, or Lyndon John son has b een r ep o rted , the fra g m en ta ry ev id en ce s e e m s su ffic ie n t to ju stify the c o n c lu sio n that sp eech w ritin g (and d e liv e ry ) a re su ch p e r so n a liz e d b eh a v io rs that each p r e sid e n t m u st c r e a te p r o c e s s e s unique to h im se lf. ! C erta in ly N ixon h as a unique way of handling the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s e s . 199 [R elevant to R h e to r ic a l C r itic is m of M odern P r e s id e n tia l S p eech m a k in g 2 1 . The r h e to r ic a l c r it ic sh ould su b stitu te the w ord " sp e e c h - w riter" fo r " g h o stw riter." 2 2 . The r h e to r ic a l c r itic m u st v iew p r e sid e n tia l sp e e c h w r itin g I in the c o n tex t of the to ta lity of p r e sid e n tia l r e s p o n s ib ilitie s and w o r k - I load . a. The s h e e r volu m e of m a te r ia ls that a p r e sid e n t is ! req u ire d to p r e se n t in e ith e r o r a l o r w r itte n fo r m I m a k es it a p h y sic a l im p o s s ib ility fo r one m an to p e r - j fo r m the e n tir e ta sk a lo n e. I b. The r e s e a r c h on the v a r ie ty of to p ic s on w hich the p r e sid e n t sp ea k s or i s s u e s sta te m e n ts is e x te n s iv e . I c . M ost p r e sid e n tia l d o cu m en ts do not r e q u ir e o r d e s e r v e p e r so n a l p r e sid e n tia l tr e a tm e n t. , d. T h ere a re p r e s id e n tia l d u ties of h ig h er p r io r ity than the w ritin g o f m o s t s p e e c h e s o r o th er d o cu m en ts. 2 3 . The r h e to r ic a l c r itic sh ou ld ev a lu a te sp e e c h w r itin g in the co n tex t o f the c o m p o sitio n and d u tie s o f a g iv en p r e s id e n t's s p e e c h - w r itin g sta ff. a. The s iz e of the p r e s id e n t's sta ff * the w r ite r s ' b a c k g ro u n d s. and how th ey a r e lis t e d on the W hite H ouse o r g a n iza tio n a l c h a r t sh ou ld be a n a ly zed . b. The s p e c ific d u tie s a ss ig n e d by th e p r e sid e n t to the w r ite r s sh ou ld be a n a ly zed . 24. The r h e to r ic a l c r itic sh ou ld e v a lu a te sp e e c h w r itin g in th e c o n tex t o f the s ta ff's co n trib u tio n s to th e d iffe r e n t ty p e s of p r e sid e n tia l | sp ea k in g . ; 200 I i a. Im p rom p tu s p e e c h e s ! b. E x te m p o ra n eo u s sp e e c h e s c . M a n u scrip t sp e e c h e s 2 5. The r h e to r ic a l c r itic should e v a lu a te sp e e c h w r itin g in the : c o n tex t o f the p r e sid e n c y a s an " in stitu tion ." A P P E N D I X E S 201 A P P E N D IX A Q UESTIO NS USED IN IN TERV IEW IN G THE NIXON SPE E C H W R IT E R S 202 A PPE N D IX A QUESTIONS USED IN INTERVIEW ING THE NIXON SPEECHW RITERS i M ost of the P r e s id e n t's im portant sp eak in g is done from tra n - i s c r ip t, is n 't it? How do you co m p en sa te for th is in m aking w ritten langu age sound lik e sp oken lan gu age? A re m o st of the P r e sid e n t's sp e e c h e s la r g e ly in fo rm a tiv e or | d o es he have oth er r h e to r ic a l o b je c tiv e s ? ' ■ i Do you e v e r find y o u r se lf arguing with the P r e sid e n t about the id e a s th e m se lv e s ? j A s a s p e e c h w r ite r , do you engage in oth er s p e e c h -r e la te d a c tiv itie s w ith the P r e sid e n t, su ch as d e liv e r y , v o ice u sa g e , e tc .? i Can you g iv e m e a rough e stim a te of the num ber of m ajor [sp e e c h e s, m in or s p e e c h e s , or o th er o r a l p r e sen ta tio n s (p r e s s c o n fe r e n c e s ) the P r e sid e n t has had to d e liv e r during h is fir s t term in o ffic e ? E s s e n tia lly , what m o st of m y fe llo w c r it ic s ob ject to about " gh ostw ritin g," a s they c a ll it, is that it c la im s its ju s tific a tio n on the ;platform of " b u sy n ess." The P r e sid e n t is ju st too busy to have tim e . Is th is a le g itim a te argu m en t? A nother o b jectio n is that the voter m ay get from g h o stw ritten sp e e c h e s a fa ls e im p r e s s io n of the P r e sid e n t. That b e c a u se of h is g h o s tw r ite r s , som eh ow what he sa y s is not r e a lly h is . In r e sp o n se to m y le tte r inquiring about the p o s sib ility of an in te r v ie w , one of your fo r m e r c o lle a g u e s stated: "It is a fir m p o licy .of m in e not to d is c u s s m y a c tiv itie s as a sp e e c h w r ite r . 1 fe e l that 203 ! 204 th o se doing th is w ork should rem a in a s anonym ous as p o ssib le ." D on't j you think that th is kind of attitude e n co u ra g es m is im p r e s sio n s by the p u b lic, g e n e r a l d is tr u s t, and o v e r a ll su sp ic io n of sp e e c h w r ite r s ? I've h eard it sa id that th e u se of g h o stw r ite r s p rod u ces c o n se r v a tism b eca u se the p o litic ia n lo s e s co n tro l of h is id e a s and th eir d ev elo p m en t to sp e e c h w r ite r s who a r e m uch m ore cau tiou s about what ; they w r ite . The r e su lt is so m e tim e s a c o n s e r v a tiv e , r e s e r v e d , and I o ften m ilk to a st sp ee ch . j j When a P r e sid e n t u s e s a g h o stw r ite r , do you think he iB being d ish o n e st w ith h is aud ien ce and not p resen tin g h im se lf as he r e a lly i s ? 1 In you r op in ion , how m uch b orrow ing from g h o stw r ite r s is ! e th ic a l? j I O ften the a ssu m p tio n is m ade that a good sp ea k er is lik ely to bej a good sta te sm a n , or that a bad sp ea k er is u n lik ely to be a good p o li- j tic ia n . T h is m ay or m ay not be tru e, y et the g e n e r a l public ten ds to ! equate sp eak in g a b ility w ith le a d e r sh ip a b ility . If m o s t - - if not a l l - - ! of the P r e s id e n t's sp e e c h e s are g h o stw ritten , do we r e a lly have any j good ev id en ce by w hich to jud ge our P r e sid e n t? j Do you think it w ould be b etter for our so c ie ty if we d is c o u r - j aged the u se of sp e e c h w r ite r s and in ste a d in s is te d that our p o litic a l .le a d e r s sp eak out c o u r a g e o u sly , r e a liz in g that so m e w ould n atu rally I co m e a c r o s s b e tte r ? How do you think the e x is te n c e of p o litic a l g h o stw ritin g a ffe c ts the study o f p o litic a l s p e a k e r s ? j : i W ould it e v er be a c a d e m ic a lly ju stifia b le to o ffe r a c o u r se in ! g h o stw r itin g ? j i ! A ckn ow led gin g the in flu en ce of g h o s tw r ite r s , how a re sp ee ch c r it ic s to d ea l w ith an a n a ly sis of in d ividu al sp e a k e r s when th eir sp e e c h e s a r e ad m itted ly g h o stw ritten e ffo r ts ? How m any sp e e c h w r ite r s d o es the P r e sid e n t have w orking for h im ? Who a r e th e y ? Is th ere any background m a te r ia l a v a ila b le on i t h e m ? ! A s a sp e e c h w r ite r , what e x a c tly a r e your r e s p o n s ib ilitie s ? I I L_______________________________ _____________ 205 How a r e you given an a ssig n m en t from the P r e sid e n t? Do you j s e e the P r e sid e n t p e r so n a lly or d oes he send a m e m o ? ; W ould you p le a se d e sc r ib e for m e the P r e s id e n t's sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s ? Do you do the r e s e a r c h ? If n ot, who d o es it? How fa m ilia r w ith the r e s e a r c h do you have to b ecom e b efore actu ally sta rtin g the sp ee ch d raft ? i On the sp eech w ritin g te a m , d o es the P r e sid e n t have c er ta in | s p e c ia lis ts su ch as lite r a r y s p e c ia lis ts to give the sp ee ch fla ir ; o rg a n - j lization s p e c ia lis t s , argum en t and rea so n s p e c ia lis ts ; r e se a r c h s p e c i- ! a lis t s , e tc . , or d o es he divide h is sta ff a cco rd in g to th e ir know ledge of fo re ig n a ffa ir s , d o m e stic p o licy , e tc . ? D o es the P r e sid e n t g e n e r a lly have an o c c a sio n to sp eak and then find a p u rp o se, or d oes he have a d e s ir e to p ersu ad e and then find! an o c c a sio n ? I In w orking on sp ee ch d r a fts, do you w rite a w hole page at a ! tim e or do you w rite a se n te n c e and then r ew r ite it? Do you ev er read the sp eech aloud as you go? i Do you e v e r w ork w ith oth er sp e e c h w r ite r s or do you w ork on ;a sp eech m o stly a lo n e ? | Do you have any c r ite r io n by w hich you a n a ly ze the P r e sid e n t's !aud ien ce and then w rite a cco rd in g ly ? F o r any given sp ee ch , how a r e the m ain poin ts or id ea s d e r iv e d ? Do they co m e from the P r e sid e n t, fro m you, the p u b lic, the is s u e s ? Who fo rm u la te s lin e s and typ es of p roof? Who d e c id es what lin e s and ty p es of proof w ill u ltim a tely be u sed ? Who w r ite s the in itia l draft and what is its f o r m ? Is th is a l w ays stan dard p ro ced u re? D o es th is d raftin g p r o c e s s and the P r e s id e n t's p e r so n a l in v o lv em en t in it change as the im p ortan ce or o c c a stio n c h a n g e s? Do you g e n e r a lly co n su lt w ith the P r e sid e n t during the p r o c e s s | of c o m p o sitio n or is it a m a tter of your sp eak ing to h im o n ce, gettin g i h is ideaB , w ritin g the sp e e c h , d e liv e r in g it to h im , and th a t's the end of it ? D o es the P r e sid e n t have any stro n g fe e lin g s about h is sp eak in g, the sp ee ch p r o c e s s , or h is sp e e c h w r ite r s ? What puts the P r e sid e n t's stam p on a sp ee ch to in d icate that it is r e a lly h is ? In oth er w o rd s, how d oes he p e r so n a liz e it? Do you know w heth er the P r e sid e n t r e h e a r se s the sp e e c h e s you w rite fo r h im ? I What do you fe e l the job of the r h e to r ic a l c r itic is as he c r i tiq u es the P r e s id e n t's sp ea k in g , know ing that o th e rs had a great part | in its c o m p o sitio n ? I Why do you f e e l that th ere is a p o litic a l need today for s p e e c h w r ite r s ? i I You are now a p r o fe ssio n a l w r ite r . W ere you a w r ite r b efore you began w ritin g sp e e c h e s ? Have you co m p iled a b r ief biography that , I could take with m e ? : t What sp ee ch train in g have you had ? I What tra in in g , if any, did you have in w ritin g sp e e c h e s b efo re you w ent to w ork for the P r e sid e n t? Do the P r e sid e n t's sp e e c h w r ite r s have any com m on h isto r y or |backg round ? How did you c o m e to sta r t w ritin g sp e e c h e s for the P r e sid e n t? A s a sp e e c h w r ite r , a r e you g iv en str u c tu r a l c r e d it in the P r e s id en t's o r g a n iza tio n a l c h a r t? How a r e you lis te d ? A re you c a lle d a sp e e c h w r ite r ? Do you have an o rg a n iza tio n a l ch a rt that 1 m ight take w ith m e ? D o es the w ord " gh ostw riter" se e m to have a p e r jo r a tiv e ring to it ? Why ? Is th e r e any a sp e c t o f the w ork you do that I have fa iled to in q u ire into that you think 1 ought to m en tion in m y d is se r ta tio n ? A P P E N D IX B IN TERV IEW S WITH SIX NIXON SPEEC H W R ITER S 207 A P P E N D IX B j INTERVIEW S WITH SIX NIXON SPEEC H W R ITER S ; I ! R ay P r ic e i P r ic e : One of the th in gs that is good about Jack [M cD on ald ] is 1 that te c h n ic a lly he cou ld d iv o r c e h im s e lf fr o m h is id e o lo g ic a l p r e ju d ic e s w h ile w ritin g fo r so m e o n e e ls e , but he w ouldn't. C u r tis : 1 s e e . M aybe I didn't get that d istin c tio n . How d o e s | i the P r e s id e n t go about fo rm u la tin g a s p e e c h ? D o es he c a ll you on the j phone, sen d you an o u tlin e , send you a m e m o , o r a sk you to c o m e to i i I h is o ffic e ? ! i P r i c e : W ell, th e r e r e a lly is no p a ttern . It m ay be any of a id ozen d iffe r e n t w a y s, ju st depending on how big th e p r o jec t is and what he is in v o lv ed w ith. C u r tis : Is th e r e a ty p ic a l w ay? P r ic e : N ot r e a lly , n o, th e r e is n 't. S o m e tim e s w e 'll be talking about so m eth in g and h e 'll g e t an id e a fo r a sp e e c h that he w an ts to d e v e lo p and h e 'll g iv e m e a few thoughts on it and then a sk m e to d e v e lo p it and I 'll do it. O ther tim e s he w ill send a m em o . S o m e tim e s he w ill h a v e v e r y c le a r ly in h is own m ind b a s ic a lly what h e w ants to 208 209 I |sa y b efore he s ta r ts . O ther tim e s h e 'll have in m ind an o c c a sio n and J he w ill be looking for id ea s or recom m en d ation s to sta r t w ith about ! ; what he sh ould say on that p a rticu la r d ate. On m any of th e s e , th e r e 's ! a lot of back and forth b etw een the sta r t and the fin ish ed product. S till , oth er tim es he m ay g iv e us a d ir e c tiv e through Bob H aldem an or 1 : so m eo n e lik e that who a cts as a chann el for him to try and rem em b er ! i 1 1 what he spoke on e a r lie r . On the fo re ig n p olicy th in g s, so m e tim e s through H enry K issin g e r; d o m e stic th in gs through John E h rlich m an , or so m e tim e s w e 'll ju st talk about a batch of upcom in g sp e e c h e s at once and k ick around id ea s for th em . C u r tis: Do you have a s e t tim e that you m ee t w ith the P r e sid e n t? P r ic e : N o . j C u r tis: T ell m e a little bit about the y e llo w le g a l pad notion ;that is a s s o c ia te d w ith the P r e sid e n t. Is that tru ly r e p re sen ta tiv e of the way he p r e p a r es s p e e c h e s ? P r ic e : It i s , and it's an im p ortan t part of it. S o m e tim e s he ^will go through an aw ful lot o f th e se y e llo w pads gath erin g and m aking |n o tes, stra ig h ten in g out and o rg a n izin g id e a s. He lik e s to work in a v ery o rg a n ized kind of w ay. O ften h e 'll w ork out id e a s on the y e llo w ;pad, ou tlin e th in g s, and th en , b eca u se he k e ep s one o f th e se little IBM jdictating m a ch in es at hand a ll the tim e , h e 'll d icta te ta p es on the m a - chine w hich w ill then be tr a n sc r ib e d by R ose W oods, h is se c r e ta r y . I On the im p ortan t s p e e c h e s , he d oes m o st of the w ork h im s e lf and ju st | i a little w ith u s , although th ere is r e a lly not that c le a r a d istin ctio n . i S o m e tim e s a sp ee ch that he c o n sid e r s e s p e c ia lly im p ortan t and one thaj he r e a lly w ants to put a lo t of tim e in on, he w ill, if he h as the tim e; i I e s p e c ia lly w h ere it r e a lly r eq u ire s m ovin g the country on an is s u e . 1 F or e x a m p le, h is A p ril 3, 1969 V ietn am sp ee ch w hich w as the "New A m erica n M ajority" sp eech in w hich he r e a lly did turn the country around on V ietn am at a very c r u c ia l tim e , that w as one that he did | c o m p le te ly h im se lf with h is y e llo w pad and d ictatin g m ach in e at C am p | D avid . j C u r tis: No co n su lta tio n at a ll? ! P r ic e : No. i ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i i C u r tis : On sp e e c h e s lik e that, d oes so m eo n e e ls e do h is r e s e a r c h and then feed it to h im , or d o es he take it a ll out of h is own I m ind ? J P r ic e : No. O ften, when he is doing one h im s e lf, h e 'll c a ll in i for fa c ts fro m u s, so m e fro m K is sin g e r , E h rlich m a n , or w h o ev er, but i I he w ill be gettin g s e le c tiv e b its and p ie c e s . Of c o u r s e , m o st o f th e se sp e e c h e s are on su b je cts he is p retty fa m ilia r w ith to o , but h e 'll ch eck out the fa c ts w ith us or ju st get m o re in form ation about so m eth in g . C u rtis: D o e s the y e llo w pad co m e u su a lly a fter y o u ’ve su g - jgested id e a s to h im or d oes that p reced e your input? ! s i__________________________________________________________________________________ 211 P r i c e : T h e r e 's no p attern on th at e ith e r . H e u s e s th e s e pads not on ly fo r s p e e c h e s but a ls o fo r w ork in g ou t id e a s and a lo t of o th er th in g s. He ju st lik e s to w ork on th e se y e llo w p ad s. C u r tis : One of the m o st su r p r isin g th in g s that I've le a r n e d in : th e s e in te r v ie w s about the P r e s id e n t is how m uch e x te m p o r a n e o u s | sp ea k in g he d o e s. I've a lso le a r n e d that w hen he d o e s sp ea k ex tem p o - i r a n e o u sly that th is is often w ithout e v e n a note c a rd or an o u tlin e . . P r i c e : It's a lw a y s w ithout. H e 'll s o m e tim e s u se a te x t but he j n e v e r u s e s n o te s . H e 's got an e x tr a o r d in a r y d im e n sio n fo r in te lle c tu a l o r g a n iz a tio n and h e 's got a v ery o r g a n iz e d m ind when he d o e s one of 1 i l th e s e e x te m p o r a n e o u s s p e e c h e s . A s a rough ru le of thum b, if th ey j w e r e r e a lly cou n ted up, I think th at about n in e te e n out of tw enty of h is public s p e e c h e s a r e w ith ou t n o te s. H e 'll fix in h is m ind e s s e n t ia lly I jwhat he w ants to sa y , the poin ts he w an ts to m a k e, so m e of the lin e s I jhe w an ts to u s e , to g eth er w ith the illu s tr a tio n s and a n e c d o te s that he I i s e le c t s . He a lw a y s lik e s to quote illu s tr a tio n s and a n e c d o te s . When I sa y a n e c d o te s , I'm not talk in g about funny s t o r ie s , but ra th er the : I p a ra b le that d r iv e s h om e a point. C u r tis : L ike the R u ssia n g ir l? P r ic e : Y e s , that w ould be a good e x a m p le . H e 'll k e e p in h is im ind w hat h e w ants to sa y and th en kind of sp ea k fr o m h is m e n ta l o u t- i lin e . The R u ss ia n g ir l in p a r tic u la r w as an e x a m p le of how he o ften I i w o r k s. You kn ow , th e r e w ill be so m e th in g th at he su d d en ly h as ju s t 212 s e e n o r h ea rd that w ill sp ark so m e th in g in h is m ind a s he is about to ■ i sp ea k and then h e ’ll d e v e lo p it. I w a s in R u s s ia w ith h im w hen he f ir s t u se d that illu s tr a tio n . He had gone one m orn in g to a c e m e te r y in L en in grad to la y a w rea th at the m on u m en t fo r the L e n in g r a d e rs who | d ied at the s ie g e of L en in grad in W orld W ar II. T h er e th ey had th is ' i l i t t l e d isp la y o f T anya S a v a c h iv a , a p ic tu r e of h e r and so m e p a g es j fr o m h er d ia r y . The gu id e ex p la in ed a ll th is to the P r e s id e n t, who l w as q u ite m o v ed by it. When he w ent to a sta te d in ner that night and j t o a s ts w e r e o ffe r e d , it c a m e tim e fo r h im to m ak e h is to a st and it w as j one of the m o st b ea u tifu l s p e e c h e s I h a v e e v e r h ea rd h im d e liv e r in a i lo n g tim e . He b u ilt up to T anya and w orked h er in a s a c lo s e to h is j i i to a s t. L a te r , I w a s h elp in g h im w ith th e sp e e c h to the R u ssia n p eo p le , I on TV and he a sk ed m e to get the e x tr a fa c ts that I cou ld on T an ya, s in c e he w anted to u s e h e r again in th is sp e e c h . And he did. I think he u sed h e r a ls o in h is sp e e c h to the n e x t s e s s io n of C o n g r e ss w hen i he c a m e b ack , and he a ls o u se d h e r in the M iam i s p e e c h . That w as ju s t an ex a m p le o f so m e th in g that he ju s t happened to s e e that he tu rn ed around and u sed in a sp e e c h . C u r tis : Do m o s t of h is a n e c d o te s c o m e fr o m e ith e r you o r m e m b e r s o f you r s ta ff? P r i c e : S om e o f th em do. I w ou ld n't sa y m o s t--m a y b e h alf. H e ’s a v o lu m in o u s r e a d e r , th ou gh , and he p ic k s up a lo t of th e se fro m h is read in g. He e s p e c ia lly lik e s to read h isto r y and h is to r ic a l I biography and a lot o f h is illu str a tio n s and a n ecd o tes co m e out o f that read in g. C u r tis: A re th ere a c tiv itie s o th er than sp eech w ritin g that you ' en gage in as part of the "W riting and R e se a r c h D ivision " o f the W hite ;H ouse sta ff? ! I P r ic e : W ell, as I think I m en tion ed to you in a le tte r so m e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i .tim e ago, sp eech w ritin g is a r e la tiv e ly sm a ll part of our w ritin g. j | M ost of our w ritin g is not sp e e c h w ritin g b eca u se he v e ry se ld o m j I .rea d s s p e e c h e s . We do the drafting on h is m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e ss , for i e x a m p le, as w ell as the o r ig in a l w ritten sta te m en ts that go out of h ere. C u r tis : A re they w ritten in ou tlin e fo rm when you give them to the P r e sid e n t? j P r ic e : N o. A m e s sa g e to C o n g r e ss go es as a w ritten m e s s a g e ex cep t for the State of the Union A d d r e ss. ! I I C u r tis: What 1 m ean t w a s, w hen you m ake su g g estio n s for d ra fts or d raft r e v is io n s , a r e they se n t back to him in outline fo r m or i a re they w o r d -fo r -w o r d d r a fts? P r ic e : W ell, now , on thin gs lik e that, of c o u r s e , h is sp e e c h e s a r e a ll v e ry p e r so n a l. But th ere a r e a lo t of th e se w ritten thin gs that |go out of h e r e that he d o e sn 't have to fun ction that m uch on. W e've I w orked w ith h is p o licy b efore with v a rio u s d ep a rtm en ts and a g e n c ie s , I w ith the D o m e stic C ou n cil, N ational S ecu rity C ou n cil, and so fo rth th at w e 'v e done th in g s fo r b e fo r e . C u r tis : H ow i s it d ecid ed who g e ts the r e sp o n s ib ility o f a c e r tain s p e e c h ? D o es the P r e s id e n t, fo r e x a m p le , s u g g e s t a p a rticu la r w r ite r or do yo u ? P r ic e : E ith e r w ay. V ery o ften he w ill h ave a p a r ticu la r writer^ in m in d that he w ants to have w ork w ith h im on a p a r ticu la r sp e e c h ! b e c a u se , know ing the str o n g and w eak poin ts of ea ch w r ite r , th eir . sty le and e v e r y th in g e l s e , fo r one sp e e c h h e 'll w ant the kind of touch j I that one w r ite r w ould b rin g to it and on an oth er sp e e c h h e 'll want the kind of touch an oth er w r ite r w ould b rin g. S o m e tim e s he w ill pick one [ i out h im s e lf and o th e r tim e s I 'll ju st a s s ig n th em out. j i C u rtis: Do you have w ritin g s p e c ia lis t s in c e r ta in a r e a s ? F o r ! 1 in s ta n c e , do you have a lite r a r y s p e c ia lis t , an o r g a n iz a tio n a l s p e c ia l i s t , an a r g u m en ta tiv e s p e c ia lis t , e tc . ? P r ic e : N ot r e a lly . They a r e a ll p retty m uch g e n e r a lis ts . S o m e tim e s th e y 'll g e t a little m o r e e x p e r tis e in so m e a r ea than o th e r s , but no r e a l s p e c ia lis t s a s su ch . i C u r tis : When you a r e w ritin g a fo r m a l d ra ft that w ill be a tr a n s c r ip t sp e e c h and you a r e r e w r itin g it, do you w r ite a se n te n c e at a tim e , a p aragrap h at a tim e , a p a g e , or do you w r ite the w hole s p e e c h and then lo o k at it a g a in ? i | P r ic e : Of c o u r s e , ev ery b o d y d o e s that d iffe r e n tly . 1 ten d , } jwhen I ’m w r itin g so m e th in g , to do it in b its and p ie c e s - - t h e cu t and p a ste m eth od that y o u 'r e p rob ab ly fa m ilia r w ith --a n d then knit th o se i p ie c e s to g e th e r . 1 then look at it a ll to s e e how it is goin g and th en throw so m e p a rts aw ay and take o th e r s and d e v e lo p c o n n e c tiv e s . Then I go o v e r it fro m top to bottom and ju s t try to m ake a little m o re se n s e , of it. C u rtis: Do you e v e r read aloud w hat you w r ite to s e e how it ! , so u n d s? ! P r ic e : N o, I don't. But I a lw a y s try to lis te n to it w ith a m en -j ta l e a r . C u rtis: D o es the P r e s id e n t r e h e a r s e s p e e c h e s - - t r a n s c r ip t ! s p e e c h e s - -th at he g iv e s ? | P r ic e : No. He n e v e r r e h e a r s e s and he m a k es a point of n e v e r j w atch in g h im s e lf on t e le v is io n , a ls o . I C u rtis: A s a s p e e c h w r ite r , do you e v e r en gage in o th er B p e e c h -r e la te d a c tiv itie s su ch a s the u se of h is v o ic e , g e s tu r e s , d e - I liv e r y fa c to r s , p o stu r e , and th in gs lik e th is ? j P r ic e : N o. H e 's an old pro at th is . He know s m o r e about th is than any of us do and r e a lly about sp e e c h w r itin g a s an a r t, to o . I w as a p r o fe s sio n a l w r ite r b e fo re 1 w ent to w ork fo r h im , but h e 's taught m e a ll 1 know about sp e e c h w r itin g as an a r t. C u r tis : Is that to sa y that you did no sp e e c h w r itin g b e fo re you c a m e to w ork fo r the P r e s id e n t? P r i c e : N o, it is n 't. But ju st a co u p le of th in g s on ce in a w h ile w h ile I w a s w ith the N ew Y ork H era ld T rib u n e. C u r tis : H ave you had any fo r m a l sp e e c h tr a in in g ? P r i c e : No. C u r tis : Did you find that the tr a n sitio n fr o m w hat you w e re doing b e fo re to sp e e c h w r itin g w as tou gh ? P r ic e : Y e s. It's a d iffe r e n t kind of an a r t fo rm . C u r tis : D o e s the P r e s id e n t have stro n g fe e lin g s about what p r a c tic e s h is s p e e c h w r ite r s sh ould and sh ou ld not en g a g e in ? F o r in s ta n c e , d o es he not lik e th em to c o n su lt one w ith an oth er du rin g a sp e e c h c o m p o sitio n p r o c e s s ? P r ic e : N ot a s any s o r t of r ig id p a ttern . He g e n e r a lly p r e fe r s m o r e ra th er th en l e s s c o n su lta tio n so that you draw in a b ro a d er sp ec* !trum of id e a s and tou ch b a se w ith p eo p le w ith d iffe r e n t p oin ts of view and who m ay h ave d iffe r e n t k in d s of in s ig h ts a s he lik e s to do h im s e lf, i n ot on ly on s p e e c h e s but w ith e v er y th in g . H is ap p roach to a lo t of !p o licy th in gs is r e a lly to tr y and sound out p eop le who w ill look at i th in g s w ith d iffe r e n t p e r s p e c tiv e s and g et th e ir p e r s p e c tiv e s on it b e fo r e he m a k e s up h is ow n m ind . C u r tis : Do you e v e r find y o u r s e lf argu in g o r str o n g ly d is c u s s - >ing id e a s w ith th e P r e s id e n t in an attem p t to ch an ge h is m in d ? D o es !he e x p e c t th is o f you and look to you fo r it ? P r i c e : He d o e sn 't. C u r tis : Do you think that m o st p eop le in A m e r ic a know that the P r e s id e n t h a s s p e e c h w r ite r s ? P r ic e : Y es. I think that in th is day and age p eop le a ssu m e j th is. C u rtis: Do you think it a ffe c ts th e ir lis t e n e r p e r c e p tio n , know -; 1 i ing that so m e o n e e ls e h a s had a hand in the p rep a ra tio n of w hat he is ; I l sa y in g ? P r ic e : F o r s o m e , y e s , but of c o u r se I think it probab ly d iffe r s su b sta n tia lly fro m one sp e a k e r to an oth er. I know th e re a r e a lo t of peop le who w ill a u to m a tic a lly a s s u m e that so m eb o d y h a s put w ord s in itheir m ou th , w h ich is tru e in a lo t o f p e o p le 's c a s e s , but it 's not tru e |in h is [N ix o n 's]. M ost p eop le a r e m isin fo r m e d on m o st th in gs and th is I {is one thing that a lo t of p eo p le a r e m isin fo r m e d on . I r e m e m b e r la s t y e a r , I thin k, you se n t m e so m e th in g s, so m e a c a d e m ic th in g s, that w e re w r itte n on th is and I w as u tte r ly ap p a lled at th e s e a r tic le s w ritter by p eo p le who su p p o sed ly knew what th ey w ere talk in g about, who w e re so c o m p le te ly and a b y s sm a lly ig n o ra n t about w hat th ey w e re w r itin g ab ou t. C u r tis : Is it a c c u r a te to s a y , th en , that you d on 't think th e |P r e s id e n t h a s a co m m u n ica tio n c r e d ib ility gap c a u se d by th e sp eech * !w r ite r 's w ork ? i i __________________________________________________________ ______________________________ 2181 i i P r ic e : I don't think p a r tic u la r ly in th is c a s e . P a r tly b e c a u se he r e lie s on sp e e c h w r ite r s probab ly l e s s than any P r e s id e n t sin c e W il son in that he d o e s m o r e o f h is own w ritin g than he a sk s o th e r s to do. P a r tly a lso b e c a u se so m uch of h is sp eak in g is not read in g. E ven on th o se sp e e c h e s that he d o e s w ith u s, w hen we w ork on d ra fts fo r him he d o es so m uch of the w ork h im s e lf. A s we w ork fo r h im , part of the: p r o c e s s of le a r n in g you r way around h e r e is lea r n in g what he would i and w ould not w ant to do. You look on y o u r s e lf not as som eb od y trying; I to put w ord s in h is m outh , but a s so m eb o d y tr y in g to h e lp h im , to save! h im so m e tim e , and sa y in g th in g s that he w ould sa y . ' I C u r tis : I w ould lik e to g iv e you a sa m p lin g of the o b jectio n s I that a few r h e to r ic a l c r it ic s have about what you do. E s s e n tia lly , ! I th e ir m a in o b je ctio n to w hat th ey c a ll " g h o stw r itin g " -- P r ic e : I hate the te r m . I r e a lly do. It r a is e s the h a c k le s on m y n eck . C u r tis : What th e s e c r it ic s o b ject to about the sp e e c h w r itin g p r o c e s s is that it c la im s its le g itim a c y on the p la tfo rm of " b u sy n e ss." j The P r e sid e n t is ju st too bu sy to do h is own w ritin g . Is th is a le g it i m ate o b jectio n on th e ir p a r t? I'm su r e you d is a g r e e , but I'm w o n d e r ing w hy, s p e c ific a lly . I P r i c e : I d is a g r e e str o n g ly . P a r tly b e c a u se the P r e s id e n t i£ jtoo b u sy to do it a ll h im s e lf and th e re a r e lo ts o f th in g s that h e is j |c a lle d upon to do a s P r e s id e n t, of w h ich m akin g s p e e c h e s is on ly a 1 _ s m a ll part. And one thing you b eco m e v e r y m uch aw are of as you a r e ; j c lo s e to the P r e s id e n c y is th at in th is w h ole c o m p le x of e ffo r t th e re is j j no co m m o d ity that is m o r e im p o rta n t to the cou n try than the P r e s i - j d en t's tim e . If you w e re to ra tio n anything* w hat you ra tio n is h is j tim e . H e's one m an who h as 24 h o u rs a day to e a t, s le e p , and do ' i ev er y th in g e ls e and he is the only p e r so n in th is cou n try o r in th is j w orld who can m ake a lo t of th e se r e a l im p o rta n t d e c is io n s . H e's got to h ave tim e to think; h e 's got to h ave tim e to c o n su lt and h e 's got to ] j have tim e to rea d , r e fle c t, and go th rou gh a b so lu te ly volu m in ou s | m a s s e s of m a te r ia l in o r d e r to m ak e in te llig e n t d e c is io n s , and m ake j th em w e ll. F o r h im to w a ste two o r th r ee d ays doin g nothing but j sc r ib b lin g on a y e llo w pad to try to m ak e so m eth in g c o m e out righ t j w ould be a c r im in a l u se of h is tim e fr o m the stan d p oin t that 1 ju s t ! I !sh ow ed you. But a ls o , g ettin g back to w hat 1 sa id our b a sic fun ction i s , w h ich is not to put w ord s in h is m ou th , but sim p ly to h elp h im get i ! 'down on pap er in an o r g a n iz e d way the th in gs that he w ants to sa y , a lo t o f th is is sim p ly m e c h a n ic a l in n a tu re. It's c o n su ltin g w ith people he w ould c o n su lt w ith , g ettin g th e ir id e a s , str a ig h ten in g out and having th em h e lp r e s o lv e the sp e e c h , its d iffe r e n c e s and so fo rth . W e've got th r ee o r fo u r d iffe r e n t p eop le w ith d iffe r e n t p oin ts of v iew and we m u st get th em to g e th e r in a room and tr y to w ork out so m e of th e s e d if f e r - jen ce s and g e t th em r e s o lv e d . A lo t o f w hat w e do is sim p ly o r g a n iz in g i w o rd s into s e n te n c e s , se n te n c e s into p a r a g r a p h s, and so fo r th , w h ich 220 is e s s e n tia lly m e c h a n ic a l. A lw a y s doing it r e c o g n iz in g that you a r e | doing it not for y o u r s e lf but fo r him ; to a c c o m p lish h is o b je c tiv e s; to e la b o ra te h is thou ghts and a ls o to help h im in thinking through th in g s i in the p r o c e s s , b e c a u se the p r o c e s s of w ritin g is p a rtly the p r o c e s s of: thinking. It's not a s if you w e r e sim p ly Bent out to w r ite a sp e e c h and j you go out and w r ite it, g iv e it to h im , he p ick s it up, w alks up to the I podium and ju s t rea d s it. That d o e sn 't happen. If that hap pened, it iwould be a d iffe r e n t th in g , but it ju st d o e sn 't happen. It's a stra w m a n argu m en t. i C u rtis: I w rote to a fe llo w who u sed to w ork as a sp e e c h w r ite r i ' | h e r e and he m ade an in te r e s tin g r e sp o n se that 1 w ould lik e to get your j j r e a c tio n to. He said : "It is m y fir m p o licy not to d is c u s s m y a c tiv i- j i <ties a s a sp e e c h w r ite r . I f e e l that th o se doing th is w ork sh ou ld r e - j I m ain a s anon ym ous a s p o s s ib le ." D on 't you think th is kind of attitu de Jencourages m is im p r e s s io n s by the p u b lic, that it f o s t e r s su sp ic io n and l I doubt in the p u b lic 's m ind about w hat sp e e c h w r ite r s d o? Do you p r e fe r :anon ym ity ? P r ic e : Y e s, b a s ic a lly I do p r e fe r to sta y out o f the lim e lig h t a s m uch a s p o s s ib le b e c a u s e , a fter a ll, th e s e a re not our s p e e c h e s , th ey a r e h is . E veryb od y is a lw a y s try in g to m ake m o re of our function {than should be m ade o f it. If th ey d is c o v e r that one o f u s w as the guy ! who w ork ed w ith h im and h elp ed a lo t on a s p e e c h , they w ill sa y that "this w a s ju st th is g u y 's id e a s," but it w a sn 't. F o r e x a m p le , I'v e s e e n 221 o c c a s io n a lly , som eb od y w ritin g about m e and th ey'd Bay th e re i s i I l so m eth in g 1 have w orked on , but they in te r p r e t it a s "N ixon is sa y in g th is b e c a u se P r ic e h as w orked on it ,'1 w h ich ju st is n 't tr u e . The m o re I a tten tion is c a lle d to u s , the m o re it u n d ercu ts the app arent le g itim a c y j i in what he is d oin g. It r e a lly is h is stu ff, but p eop le are a lw a y s lo o k ing fo r w ed g es and g o ss ip y th in g s. 1 t C u rtis: Do you e v e r think that th e re w ould be a tim e when | 1 sp ee ch w r itin g w ould be u n eth ica l, w hen what you w ould do fo r the J P r e s id e n t w ould b o rd er on the u n e th ic a l? I'm thinking now of w h ere ■ i you w ould w rite the e n tir e tr a n s c r ip t, g iv e it to h im , and then he w ould d e liv e r it. | P r ic e : W ell, I w ouldn't a u to m a tica lly sa y that it w ould be u n e th ic a l fo r that o th er to happen. In o th er w o r d s, I can c o n c e iv e of I situ a tio n s in w h ich I w ould know e x a c tly what the P r e sid e n t w ould want 'to sa y and 1 w ould B i m p l y put it down on p ap er. It would be what he i ! w ould w ant to sa y and he did sa y it. But I w ould s e e a s u n eth ica l if he w ere in a h u rry and I tr ie d to s lip so m eth in g in th at w ould be what he w ould not want to say: so m eth in g that m igh t s lip on through. A s long a s I am sim p ly p rovid in g h e lp for h im w ith what he d o es w ant to sa y , I don't s e e that a s p r e se n tin g any e th ic a l p r o b le m s. C u rtis: Do you think it w ould be a c a d e m ic a lly ju s tifia b le to joffer a c o u r s e in sp e e c h w r itin g ? 222 I P r ic e : W eil, of c o u r s e , lo ts of p la c e s o ffe r th o se c o u r s e s , but I 'm not su r e how m uch good th ey a r e d oin g. A ls o , 1 h a v en 't b een c lo s e enough to have a s e n s e o f how good they a r e . ( C u rtis: What a tten tio n , if an y, a r e r h e to r ic a l c r it ic s o b lig a ted i i to g iv e to the s p e e c h w r ite r 's in v o lv em e n t in the sp e e c h p re p a r a tio n | p r o c e s s ? i | P r ic e : I su p p ose that depend s on th e sp e a k e r , w h eth er h e is 1 ■ ■ i som eb od y who ju s t rea d s o th er p e o p le 's w ork , o r w h eth er the p eop le | h elp in g h im w ith it are o n e s who tr y to co n fo rm to h is s ty le o r a n y thing e l s e , w h eth er he h as a sty le of h is ow n. If he h as a sty le of h is ow n and he sim p ly h as p eop le who are h elp in g put p ie c e s to g e th e r , then 1 think it sh ou ld be tr e a te d s tr ic tly a s h is . If it is so m eb o d y who j h ab itu ally d epend s on som eb od y e ls e to g ive h im a s ty le , then th a t's a ! little d iffe re n t. C u r tis : Im p lic it in th is is that r h e to r ic a l c r it ic s do have an o b lig a tio n to se a r c h out the d e g r e e of in v o lv em e n t, if a n y, of o th e r s in th e sp e e c h p rep a ra tio n p r o c e s s ? P r i c e : N o, I don 't think n e c e s s a r ily . If you have so m e s o r t of clu n k er who h ir e s a Ted S o r e n so n --a n d I ’m not c a llin g Jack K ennedy a c lu n k er , I don 't m ean th a t--b u t if you had so m eb o d y who co u ld n 't str in g th r e e w ord s to g eth er and had a S o r e n so n w r itin g fo r h im , it w ould m a t te r so m e . A lso , I su p p o se that a lot d ep en d s on w hat you a r e going to do w ith you r r h e to r ic a l a n a ly s is . If you a r e goin g to go on a s so m e I 223 l ra th er s illy c r it ic s have done to try and d iv in e fr o m the n u m b er of | j tim e s the w ord "three" c o m e s up in a sp e e c h what the m e ta p h y sic a l j co n n e c tio n of th is and h is le g is la tiv e p ro g ra m is or so m e th in g lik e th a t, it is v e ry s illy ; o r to look back into h is ch ild h o o d , or a s so m eo n e I I once did: T hey m ad e a study of p r e sid e n tia l in a u g u ra l a d d r e s s e s and trie d to c h a r a c te r iz e d iffe r e n t c a te g o r ie s of p r e sid e n ts b a sed on the ! num ber o f tim e s c e r ta in w ord s ap p eared in th e ir in au gu ral a d d r e s s e s . | I T his is u tte r ly r id ic u lo u s. But th e r e , o b v io u sly , the w r ite r is a fa c - ! I to r , but th a t's su ch an ab su rd e x e r c is e , anyw ay. 1 think if you a r e • ev a lu a tin g a public p e r so n , 1 w ould sa y b a s ic a lly you ought to take j r p retty m uch at fa c e valu e w hat h e c h o o s e s to sa y a s a r e fle c tio n of what he w an ts to sa y . P r e su m a b ly , if he h ir e s w r ite r s to h elp h im , hej h ir e s th em b e c a u se th ey a r e the kind of w r ite r s that p rod u ce the kind of stu ff he w ants to sa y . He m ay be one who is n 't v e r y s k ille d at put- I tin g w ord s to g e th e r , but m ay be v e r y sk ille d at oth er th in g s, su ch as [a n a ly sis o f is s u e s . But "word c ra ft" is sim p ly not h is str e n g th , so he [h ires so m eb o d y to h elp h im w ith that and it s e e m s to m e to be c o m p le te ly ir r e le v a n t a s to how the w ord s he c h o o s e s to u se h ave b een throw n to g e th e r for h im . C u r tis : The P r e s id e n t, I a s s u m e , tr u s ts you r jud gm en t w hen ! you h ir e w r ite r s that th ey w ill be the kind who w ill w ork w ith h is a tti tu d e, h is s ty le , and that s o r t of th in g ? P r ic e : Y e s. 224 C u r tis : H ave I fa ile d to ask you anything about the n atu re of i w hat you do that you think X ought to in clu d e in m y study ao that it w ill ; be tru ly r e p r e se n ta tiv e ? P r ic e : One w ord o f cau tion w ould be th at a s you sta r t out on th« — — j P r e s id e n c y , and e s p e c ia lly the P r e s id e n c y o f R ich a rd N ixon , it 's p r o b - ! ably tru e of a ll P r e s id e n t s - - it c e r ta in ly is h e r e --t h a t the P r e s id e n c y j ! I is a v e r y c o m p le x o ffic e . P ro b a b ly m o st people who r ea ch th is o ffic e a r e v e ry c o m p le x m en and th ey d ea l w ith m any d iffe r e n t kinds of j j is s u e s , d iffe r e n t c o n c e r n s that they want to r e fle c t in v a r io u s w ays so ! i th ey w ill want to su rrou n d th e m s e lv e s w ith a fa ir ly v a r ie d sta b le of I | w r ite r s not a ll cu t fr o m the sa m e m old . A sta b le a ll cu t fro m one | m o ld w ould not a c c u r a te ly r e fle c t the m any s id e s of the m an or the j l | o ffic e . You want one w r ite r you can tu rn to fo r th is kind of th in g, 1 an oth er w r ite r you can tu rn to fo r that kind of th in g. T hey w ill be d if- fe r e n t, but th ey w ill a ll b e , in d iffe r e n t w a y s, r e fle c tiv e of the P r e s i - jdent. If they w e r e n 't, th ey w ouldn't be h e r e , o r th ey sh ou ld n 't. In the I c a s e o f th is p a r tic u la r P r e s id e n t, it is v e ry im p o rta n t in te r m s o f h is r h e to r ic , to p la c e th is P r e s id e n c y in the c o n te x t of h is q u a rter cen tu ry o f public life . He w as m akin g s p e e c h e s and w as a p r o fe s s io n a l s p e e c h w r ite r m any y e a r s b e fo re any of us w ere around and he d e v e lo p ed a v e r y d e fin ite sty le o f h is ow n w hich is v ery m uch h is own. He h as |tried to adapt e a ch of u s in tu rn to h is way o f doing th in g s, ra th er than th e o th er w ay around. He sta r te d o ff a s q u ite a sc h o o l d eb a ter b e fo re 225 he got into p o litic s and he h a s a lw a y s b een on e who p r e fe r s to do h is j ow n stu ff when he ca n . One r e a s o n he often lik e s to w ork on an im - ( port ant sp e e c h h im s e lf is that although it is h ard w ork for h im , it is ! a ls o a good s e lf -d is c ip lin e . It's hard to r e a lly think a q u estio n through ! in a ll its r a m ific a tio n s . But the w ritin g p r o c e s s f o r c e s him to look at J what m ea n s w ould r eq u ire him to put it th is way and w hat that w ay, : 1 i and what it w ould do for h im . He is a lw a y s thin king o f h is s p e e c h e s in, I te r m s o f the se co n d o r th ird y e a r fr o m now , what th is p a r tic u la r j \ sp e e c h w ill m ean ten y e a r s fro m now , or w hat it w ould be lik e a thousand m ile s fro m h e r e , and so fo rth . 1 3 i L ee H uebner ■ i i ii i C u r tis : W ould you g iv e m e so m e in fo r m a tio n about the F r e s i - 1 d en t's sp e e c h p re p a r a tio n p r o c e s s ? D o e s he c a ll you on the phone or I sen d you a m e m o ? In oth er w o r d s, how is the sp e e c h w r itin g p r o c e s s ! in itia te d ? H u eb n er: It r e a lly v a r ie s . I think the ty p ic a l p r o c e s s i s , a s it |is w ith so m any th in gs in th is p a r tic u la r sta ff, a h ig h ly str u c tu r e d thing w h ere so m eh o w o r o th er a d e c is io n is m ad e that th e P r e s id e n t is going to sp ea k on a g iv en o c c a s io n . It m ay be m ad e by a sch ed u lin g group w h ich th en g e ts h is a p p ro v a l, it m ay be m ad e by M r. H ald em an who then m a k es su re that th e P r e s id e n t's in tu n e w ith that o r it m ay i I j o r ig in a te w ith the P r e s id e n t h im s e lf. But so m eh o w o r o th e r , the I l _ ___________________________ . P r e s id e n t fin a lly m a k e s the c o m m itm en t. When that h ap p en s, th en a I lo t of th in g s s ta r t happening; the o r d e r s go out to the ad v a n cem en , who s e t up the situ a tio n ; th e o r d e r s go out to th e p r e s s o ffic e to a n nounce that th e sp e e c h is going to be given ; an oth er n a tu ra l part of that p r o c e s s is that an in str u c tio n sh e e t w ould c o m e fro m M r. H aide m a n 's I o ffic e fro m the sta ff s e c r e ta r y who w orks fo r H ald em an , to the j sp e e c h w r itin g sta ff sa y in g , "the P r e s id e n t w ill appear on th is o c c a sio n , in th is c o n tex t and you r o ffic e is r e sp o n s ib le to p r e p a r e the m a te r ia l | fo r that." We w ould then h ave to d e ter m in e fr o m the c o n te x t, R ay j P r ic e ta lk in g to H ald em an , o r m aybe ju s t m akin g our ow n jud gm en t j i w h eth er we ought to g iv e the P r e s id e n t a fo r m a l te x t o r w h eth er th is ! w ould ju st be in fo r m a l r e m a r k s. The m a te r ia ls w e w ould g iv e h im j th e n w ould be ju s t so r t of lo o s e ite m s that su g g e st th ou gh ts to h im jrather than fu lly w r itte n out p a ra g ra p h s and p a g e s. At that p oin t, w e ;Would go to w ork on it , u su a lly c o m in g at it in a str u c tu r e d w ay. O nce w e got into it, it m ay be that we w ould be talk in g to th e P r e s id e n t, i p a r tic u la r ly if it w e re a v e r y im p o rta n t s p e e c h , about ju s t what he jwanted o r we w ould go to E h rlic h m a n w e re it a d o m e stic m a tte r , or to K is s in g e r 's p eo p le if it r e la te d to fo r e ig n p o lic y . C u r tis : In o th er w o r d s, it 's not ju st a m a tte r of s e e in g the P r e s id e n t o n c e , d oin g the sp e e c h , and sen d in g it b a ck ? H uebner: No. C u r tis: Do you have other r e sp o n sib ilitie s h ere other than just i w ritin g s p e e c h e s ? H u eb n er: W ell, 1 think "w ritin g and r e s e a r c h ," b road ly d e fin ed , r e a lly e n c o m p a s s e s the w hole r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . C u r tis : So you w r ite fo r o c c a s io n s o th er than o r a l p r e s e n ta tion ? H u eb n er: Y e s, and I w ould sa y m o st o f the w ork d u rin g p a r - ! tic u la r s e a s o n s is m a te r ia l th at a p p ea rs in w r itte n fo r m . Jan u ary, j F e b r u a r y , and M arch , when the new C o n g r e s s e s are co m in g in or the J i se co n d s e s s io n s of C o n g r e ss a r e b eg in n in g , c o m m e n c e w hat w e c a ll 1 i the " m e ssa g e se a so n ." E v e r y w eek o r so a lon g w ritten docu m en t | I w h ich we w r ite w ill go to the C o n g r e ss la y in g out the le g is la tiv e p r o - j gram in a p a r tic u la r a r e a . T h ose d ocu m en ts r e a lly take m uch m o re tim e to w r ite than a sp e e c h b e c a u se th ey h ave to be n eg o tia ted lik e i tr e a tie s w ith so m any p eop le in the g o v ern m en t. And b e c a u se th ey i have a lo t of p o licy im p lic a tio n s , it's a lm o s t lik e m akin g le g is la tio n . , The bulk of what c o m e s out o f th e W hite H ou se w ith the P r e s id e n t's n am e on it c o m e s out in w ritten fo rm . E ach day th e r e w ill be an an n ou n cem en t, a sta te m e n t, a d e c la r a tio n , an e x e c u tiv e o r d e r , a p r o c la m a tio n fo r M o th er 's D a y , a sta te m e n t about v e te r a n s , a m e s - ' sa g e on why he v eto ed a c e r ta in b ill, o r a little m em oran d u m to the j head o f a c e r ta in a g en cy to be m ad e p u b lic. A nything th at c o m e s out | w ith the P r e s id e n t's n am e on it p a s s e s th rou gh our o ffic e a lm o st lik e i ~ ~ zzr\ i i we w ere the fin a l stop p in g point on th e a ss e m b ly lin e . 1 spend a lo t of I | m y tim e ed itin g c o r r e sp o n d e n c e that w ill be m ade public o r that is goin g to h ea d s of sta te around the w o rld . It i s , th e r e fo r e , p laced in a s p e c ia l c a te g o r y in our o ffic e fo r v e rb a l ex a m in a tio n b efo re it g o es ' j ou t, I I C u r tis : T e ll m e about the y e llo w pad the P r e s id e n t u s e s in h is J p e r so n a l sp e e c h c o m p o sitio n . D o es he r e a lly u se th em ? k H u eb n er: A b so lu te ly , y e s . S o m e tim e s to our fr u str a tio n . I i on ce spoke on a cam p u s and m ade the h o n est c o n fe s s io n that e v e r y 1 now and then the sp e e c h w r itin g sta ff g e ts a little fr u str a te d b e c a u se thd P r e s id e n t d o es so m uch of h is own w ritin g on the im p ortan t s p e e c h e s . j 1 lea r n e d righ t aw ay to be v ery c a r e fu l about u sin g that w ord " fr u s- 1 tra ted ," b e c a u se the n ex t m o rn in g in th e ca m p u s n ew sp a p er th e re w as a big h e a d lin e sayin g: "N ixon A ide F in d s Job F r u str a tin g ." W ell, that w a sn 't th e poin t at a ll. It's a v e ry e x c itin g p la c e to b e. B ut on the big s p e e c h e s , the P r e s id e n t r e a lly r e g a r d s our inputs a s raw m a te r ia l ; in th e " r a w e st” kind of s e n s e and he r e a lly sp en d s a lo t o f tim e r e fin - I ing the s p e e c h , r ew r itin g it, and so m e tim e s ju st c o m p le te ly doing h is ow n sp e e c h e n tir e ly . T hen we w ill ste p b ack , as we did a fter the c o n ven tion s p e e c h , for e x a m p le , at the co n v en tio n la s t s u m m e r , and one i w r ite r w ill say: "G ee, 1 think h is u se o f that a d je c tiv e th e r e m ay have co m e out of a m em o 1 w r o te two m on th s b e fo r e ," and so m eb o d y e ls e w ill sa y : "That p aragrap h so r t of a d d r e s s e s an is s u e that I m en - i 229 I [ ! I tio n ed ." But p a r tic u la r ly fo r that a ccep ta n ce sp e e c h and o th er r e a lly 'big s p e e c h e s , sta te of the union a d d r e s s e s , and so on , the ratio of the { P r e s id e n t's sp e e c h w r ite r s being in v o lv ed is not v e ry high. C u rtis: Do you e v e r s e e the y e llo w pad it s e lf ? D o es that e v e r c o m e o v e r to y o u ? i i H u eb n er: N ot the pad it s e lf . E v e r y now and then I h ave had a j ' i ch an ce to se e the pads that h e 's sc r ib b le d on. F o r in s ta n c e , I look ed o v e r a ll the pads that he w orked on b efo re he gave h is in au gu ral a d - j i d r e s s . H e a sk ed us to go th rou gh th em and s e e if th e r e w e re id e a s I that w e w ould want to u se fo r fu tu re sp e e c h e s that he hadn't b een ab le j i to u se at that tim e . i C u r tis : Is it a c c u r a te to sa y that th e y e llo w pad w ould c o n s is t im o stly of the m ain id e a s th at he w ants to g iv e in th e sp e e c h ? 1 | H u eb n er: It's kind of a running s e n te n c e , to p ic o u tlin e . i C u r tis : And that is what c o m e s to y o u ? H u eb n er: W ell, not in that fo r m . In fa c t, it u su a lly w o rk s the o th er w ay around. U su a lly , he s o lic it s fro m u s the raw m a te r ia l and then he ta k e s th em and r e a lly p ou rs into th em . If he is r e a lly w ritin g th e sp e e c h fr o m s c r a tc h , ou r m a te r ia ls a r e d e liv e r e d to h im a s inputs and he ta k e s it fr o m th e r e . C u rtis: What fo rm do your m a te r ia ls to h im ta k e ? A re th ey o u tlin e s ? i H uebner: N o. It a ll d ep en d s. O ften , if h e is not goin g to u se ! 230 n o te s --a n d th a t's the o th er point to m ak e. In ad d ition to w ritin g so m any of h is ow n s p e e c h e s . I w ould sa y that 75 to 80 p e r c e n t of the tim e, he d o e sn 't u se any n o te s at a ll. He ju s t sp ea k s e x te m p o r a n e o u sly . Hej v a stly p r e fe r s that to u sin g a te x t. C u r tis : T h ese w ould be m in o r s p e e c h e s , of c o u r s e ? H uebner: Y e s. But s o m e tim e s e v en l e s s m in o r . S o m e tim e s , ! h e ’ll go to an A m e r ic a n L eg io n C o n v e n tio n --I don 't m ean to u se that a s ;an h is to r ic e x a m p le b e c a u se it m ig h t be w r o n g --b u t h e 'll go to so m e t kind of big co n v en tio n and sp eak w ithout n o te s. In a ll h is cam p a ig n in g > at an a ir p o r t r a lly , or a p o litic a l g a th e rin g , he w ill not u se n o te s. H e 'll g iv e so m e v e r s io n o f a stan d ard sp e e c h u su a lly on th o se o c c a sio n s: g r e e tin g a group of v is ito r s to the W hite H o u se , g r e e tin g fo r - i eig n le a d e r s , to a stin g at a sta te d in n er, e tc . E ven though that sp e e c h |m a y h ave a lo t of p o licy im p lic a tio n s , h e 'll a lm o st a lw a y s do it w ithout i n o te s. C u r tis : No o u tlin e at a ll? H u eb n er: No. Not a w ord on a p ie c e of p ap er. So fo r th o se o c c a s io n s - -and a s I sa y , I w ould g u e ss that th r e e q u a r te r s o f th e s e p a r a te sp ea k in g o c c a s io n s fa ll into that c a te g o r y --w e a r e a sk ed to p r e pare fo r him what we c a ll " su g g e sted r e m a r k s." T hey u su a lly take the | fo r m of a m en u in w h ich we m igh t lay out tw enty d iffe r e n t id e a s th at he cou ld w eave into h is r em a rk s if he w anted to and th ey a r e s e e n as a lte r n a tiv e s . Now h e o b v io u sly w ould not u se a ll of th e m , but he 231 j w ould go down th o se fou r o r fiv e p a g e s o f n o te s and pick and c h o o se an ite m he m ig h t lik e to w ork in , o r tw o, th r e e , o r fou r ite m s he m igh t lik e to w ork in. One m ig h t be ju s t a o n e -lin e p u n ch lin e, an oth er m igh t 1 : | be a little jo k e , an oth er m ig h t be a p arab le that w ould illu s tr a te a 1 i p oin t, an oth er m igh t ju st be a s ta tis tic that we think m igh t be u sefu l I .and an oth er m igh t be so m e r e fe r e n c e to h is to r y . Or if he is to a stin g i P r im e M in iste r H eath , we m igh t su g g e s t a little sto r y about so m e th in g | I th at happened to H eath w hen he w as a b oy, or a little note to the e ffe c t th at both H eath and N ixon play the p ian o, or a quote fr o m C h u rch ill i about B r itis h -A m e r ic a n fr ie n d sh ip , o r so m e r e fe r e n c e to the la s t tim e i N ixon w as in E n glan d . By the tim e w e g et d o n e, w e m ig h t h ave four oxj ! fiv e p a g es of th at kind of stu ff and th en he ju st c a s t s h is e y e s down it. j W here it m igh t take h im fiv e m in u tes to rea d through it, it m igh t have 'taken u s th r e e d ays to put it a ll to g e th e r , but in th o se fiv e m in u tes he i j can then be rem in d ed of m aybe fou r o r fiv e little tid b its that he w ants j to t o s s into h is e x te m p o r a n e o u s p a r ts. C u r tis : On th o se o th er o c c a s io n s , the 25 p e r c e n t when he d o e s sp ea k fr o m a w r itte n te x t, who w r ite s the in itia l d ra ft a fter you send ithe m a te r ia l to h im and he u s e s h is y e llo w p ad ? Who fo r m u la te s the in itia l d raft ? i H uebner: W ell, le t 's take that o th er 25 p e r c e n t and a ty p ic a l c a s e study: the C anadian P a r lia m e n t S p eech la s t A p ril [1 9 7 2 ]. We w ould u su a lly do an in itia l d raft. S o m e tim e s if it w e re a h ig h ly t i ! te c h n ic a l stu d y , we m igh t get an in itia l d raft fr o m the d ep artm en t or l a g en cy in v o lv ed . The S tate D ep a rtm en t, for e x a m p le , m ig h t w r ite in a su g g e ste d d raft of what th ey think he should sa y w hen he sp ea k s to the C anadian P a r lia m e n t, w h ich th ey in tu rn m ay have gotten fro m our : e m b a ss y in C anada. That w ould c o m e to u s , we w ould rea d it o v e r , and n in e tim e s out of ten w e'd d e c id e that it ju s t w a sn 't righ t fo r the P r e sid e n t; it w a sn 't the s o r t of thin g w e thought he w anted to sa y . S o m e tim e s we w ill be g iv en a little gu id an ce at th at sta g e by the P resi-J dent. F o r e x a m p le , on that C anadian P a r lia m e n t S p eech , I got a \ cou p le of s e n te n c e s fr o m the P r e s id e n t in d ica tin g that he w anted to | | ta lk about fo r e ig n p o lic y in g e n e r a l, not ju st about C a n a d ia n -A m er ic a n j i i r e la tio n s . G iven that g u id a n ce, and th en g iv en that input fro m S ta te , it w as ju st up to m e to go ah ead and do a d raft of what 1 thought he ought to sa y . In doing th at, I c o n su lte d w ith the p eop le fr o m the State D ep a rtm en t, p a r tic u la r ly D r. K is s in g e r 's a d v is o r s on C anadian a f fa ir s . 1 rea d a few books about C anada and ta lk ed to fr ie n d s o f m in e iwho hap pened to have liv e d th e r e . By the tim e I got d o n e, 1 had a d ra ft w h ich 1 th en c ir c u la te d to m aybe fou r o r fiv e in te r e s te d and e x p e r t p eo p le around the W hite H ouse and around the g o v e rn m e n t, got th e ir c o m m e n ts fo r the se co n d d r a ft, and fin a lly w as read y to sen d the |d raft to h im . A t that p oin t, th en , it w ould d iv e r g e . If h e had a lo t o f |tim e , h e w ould tak e it fr o m th e r e and we m igh t n e v e r s e e it ag a in . ] {And if he r e a lly got out the y e llo w le g a l pad, w hat 1 g ave h im w ould be the building b lo c k s in that p r o c e s s so that by the tim e the sp e e c h got j j done it w ould r e a lly be h is produ ct e n tir e ly . If he had le s s tim e to w ork on i t - - i n the o c c a s io n I ju st d e sc r ib e d in C anada he had l e s s tim ei i i to w ork on it b e c a u se it w as righ t w hen he w as d ecid in g about resum ingj i the bom bing of V ie tn a m --th e n he m igh t not tak e it ap art. H e m igh t jus^ i i w ork on m y d ra ft. What happened on that one w as that a co u p le of days: : i la te r I got m y d raft back a ll m a rk ed up w ith so m e p aragrap h s kn ocked | out and sc r ib b lin g on th e sid e and a n ote at the end " see m y sp e e c h back in 1958 on su ch and su ch and th e r e 's a good endin g in th e r e that f I m ig h t fit h ere" and that type of thing. I took it fr o m th e re and m ade y e t an oth er d raft and th en he took it fro m th e re and rew o rk ed that. 1 n e v e r did s e e the fin ish e d d raft. O nly at the v e ry end up at C am p ! i !D avid the night b e fo r e he le ft fo r C anada did I a ctu a lly s it down w ith h im and that w as ju st for a co u p le of m in u tes to ju s t talk about two or th r e e m in o r little fin a l c h a n g e s. C u r tis : The im p r e s s io n I get is that the sp e e c h w r itin g p r o c e s s v a r ie s ju st tr e m e n d o u sly . H u eb n er: Y e s , it v a r ie s . It is v e r y hard to ty p ify . C u rtis: E v en w ith the sa m e P r e s id e n t it v a r ie s , le t alon e fro m P r e s id e n t to P r e s id e n t, and I think th a t's w hat m o st of our c r it ic s fa il |to r e a liz e : that th ey c a n 't ta lk about " gh ostw ritin g" a s su ch in vague I and g e n e r a l te r m s . H uebner: T h at's righ t. E a ch e x e r c is e is a se p a r a te c h a lle n g e I " " 234 | ! i and a se p a r a te p ro c ed u r e. C u rtis: H ave you e v e r found y o u r s e lf argu in g w ith the P r e s i - j dent about the u s e s of c e r ta in lin e s of r ea so n in g o r th e in trod u ction of c e r ta in n o tio n s o r id e a s ? ! H u eb n er: I don 't think "arguing" w ould be the p h ra se in the j se n s e that it w ould be a b a c k -a n d -fo r th a rgu m en t. The op p ortu nity to j r e a lly sit down and talk through a sp e e c h w ith h im a r en 't that freq u en t.. In th e s e n s e of try in g to p ersu a d e h im that our app roach is the righ t j o n e , y e s , I think we so m e tim e s w ill m ake a su g g e stio n . And e v e n if j I ! he r e je c ts it, w e w ill not abandon it e n tir e ly , but w ill try to p r e se n t it i i [ in a d iffe r e n t lig h t or m ake the c a s e again . One of our w r ite r s talk ed i j about doing so m e s p e e c h - - I ca n 't r e m e m b e r what one it w a s --a b o u t th r ee y e a r s ago in w h ich he kept putting a lin e in, the P r e s id e n t kept knocking it o u t, and e v e r y tim e he got the d ra ft b ack , h e ’d put it in |again and th e P r e s id e n t w ould k e e p knocking it out. He w as n e v e r su re iw hether the r e a so n it w as b ein g kn ocked out w as b e c a u se he ju s t r e je c te d the id ea or w h eth er the P r e s id e n t ju st d id n 't lik e the lin e . But i the fin al v e r s io n e m e r g e d in so m e fo rm w ithout the lin e b e c a u se that w as the way the P r e s id e n t w anted it. He w ants not only in d ep en d en tly thinking w r ite r s , but a v a r ie ty o f range of p eo p le on h is sta ff so that ! he g e ts d iffe r e n t in p u ts. C u rtis: Do you a ll w ork to g e th e r on a sp e e c h ? ! 235 I I 1 H u eb n er: V ery r a r e ly . A lm o st a lw a y s one p e r so n is a s s ig n e d j to a g iv en p r o je c t. C u r tis : D o es that in d ic a te that you a r e s p e c ia lis t s in c e r ta in i a r e a s ? H u eb n er: Not r e a lly . T h at's the o th er thing I think you ought j i i to r e a liz e . We a r e s p e c ia lis t s in g e n e r a liz in g , and th a t's about a ll. j C u r tis : You don't have a lite r a r y s p e c ia lis t , a s p e c ia lis t in arg u m en t, and th in g s lik e th a t? j ! H uebner: N ot s tr ic tly sp ea k in g . I su p p ose R ay P r ic e , our i J b o s s , h a s to know w hat our p a r tic u la r c a p a b ilitie s a r e , w h ere our j i str e n g th s and w e a k n e s s e s lie , and in m akin g a s s ig n m e n ts he m ay d e - | i icide "this is a b e tter thing fo r s o -a n d -s o to do than so m e o n e e ls e ." i 1 I C u r tis : J u st in tu itiv ely by know ing you ? I H u eb n er: Y e s. S o m e tim e s it m ay have to do w ith su b ject ^m atter. B ill S a tir e , fo r e x a m p le , o ften h a n d les te c h n ic a l e co n o m ic to p ic s . He ju s t sta r te d doing that and had k ep t on. C u r tis : D o es the P r e s id e n t e v e r r e q u e st a c e r ta in w r ite r on a p a r tic u la r a ss ig n m e n t? H u eb n er: If that is the c a s e , b e fo r e R ay e v e r g e ts a ch a n ce to m ake an a s s ig n m e n t, so m e one of the a ss ig n m e n t s h e e ts m ay c o m e to him fr o m th e P r e s id e n t w ith the n o te , "have s o -a n d -s o g iv e a try at 'th is." C u rtis: Do you e v e r read aloud what you w r ite ? i_________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 23F~| i I H u eb n er: Y e s. If I'm w ritin g for an o r a l sp e e c h I tr y to sound j I it out in m y h ead . I don 't know that I a c tu a lly read it aloud or ju st im a g in e it b ein g rea d aloud. I don 't h ave any r e a l s c ie n tific way of te s tin g w h eth er or not so m e th in g is in the P r e s id e n t's s ty le . I couldn't g iv e you a lis t of fiv e a b str a c t q u a litie s that the P r e s id e n t's s ty le h a s, but I think 1 ca n , a s 1 read so m e th in g th rou gh , t e ll w h eth er so m eth in g w ould ja r w ith that s ty le . F o r that r e a so n I rea d alou d . ^ | C u r tis : Do you know w h eth er the P r e s id e n t r e h e a r s e s h is j ! s p e e c h e s b e fo r e he g iv e s th e m ? ! i H u eb n er: I'm a lm o st p o s itiv e that he d o es not. J C u r tis : A s a sp e e c h w r ite r do you en g a g e in o th er s p e e c h - r e la te d a c tiv it ie s w ith th e P r e s id e n t, su ch a s d e liv e r y , u se o f the | :v o ic e , g e s t u r e s , anything lik e th is ? H u eb n er: A lm o st n e v e r . T h ere w as one o c c a s io n a fter the ;1970 ca m p a ig n w hen h e ask ed u s for our thou ghts on h is d e liv e r y d u r ing that ca m p a ig n and it 's the on ly o c c a s io n w h ere I've e v e r en co u n te r e d that. C u r tis : L et m e g iv e you so m e of the o b je c tio n s th at a few r h e to r ic a l c r it ic s h ave about what you do. E s s e n tia lly , w hat th ey o b je ct to about sp e e c h w r itin g is th at it c la im s its le g itim a c y on the p la tfo rm of " b u sy n e ss." The P r e sid e n t is ju s t too b u sy to do h is ow n | w r itin g . Is b u sy n e ss a le g itim a te arg u m en t fo r the n e c e s s ity of I s p e e c h w r ite r s ? 2 3 7 i H u eb n er: Y e s. I think it i s . I think it iB an im p ortan t poin t. ! I'm a ss ig n e d to a s p e e c h --th e sp e e c h in C an ada, ju st to u se that sa m e ! e x a m p le --a n d 1 r e a lly sp en t a good w eek p u llin g to g eth er th ou gh ts, id e a s , s u g g e s tio n s , s t o r ie s , h is to r ic a l a llu s io n s , q u o ta tio n s, and a ll 1 I the r e s t. The P r e s id e n t cou ld n 't c o n c e iv a b ly h a v e g iv en e v en a p art o f 1 I th at tim e to that sp e e c h . 1 su p p o se he cou ld h a v e , but that w ould have ! m ea n t th at so m eth in g e ls e w ould have su ffer ed and s im ila r ly w ith the | w r itte n m e s s a g e s . A ll the tim e that is sp en t ch e ck in g , c le a r in g , com -| p r o m isin g , n e g o tia tin g , and r e s e a r c h in g , in o r d e r to m ake a docum entj th at w ill do the job it 's su p p o sed to do, I think it w ould be r e a lly im p o s s ib le to a sk a P r e s id e n t to d evote that kind of tim e to it. In fa c t, a lo t of p eop le around h e r e think th at he sp en d s too m uch tim e a s it i s j on h is ow n sp ee ch w r itin g ; that it's not the b e st u se of h is tim e . The !oth er point that 1 w ould m ak e r e la te d to that is that I think one c o m e s ! to f e e l a fter w ork in g h e r e a w h ile , that the P r e s id e n c y --th e w ay we i parad ed the m o d ern P r e s id e n c y in th is c o u n tr y - -it's im p o s s ib le for it to be a "m an." We h ave to think o f it a s an " in stitu tio n ," w hich m ea n s th at a lo t o f p eo p le w orking and rev o lv in g around one m an but, n e v e r t h e le s s , a c o m p le x a r r a y o f p eop le doing th in gs fo r h im and in h is n am e that one p e r so n co u ld n 't p o s sib ly do h im s e lf. And that d o e sn 't ju s t m ean r e s e a r c h in g and putting id e a s and w ord s to g e th e r fo r h is ! p o s sib le u s e , but it a ls o e v en m ea n s m ak in g d e c is io n s in h is nam e; I ! | so m e that he m a y n e v e r ev en know about. I 2381 I C u r tis : Do you think that m o a t of the A m e r ic a n p e o p le know j that the P r e a id e n t h as a p e e ch w riter a ? H u eb n er: Y e s, I think so . C u r tis : Do you think th is a ffe c ts th e ir lis t e n e r p e r c e p tio n ? ! H uebner: M aybe a little b it. My th e o ry is th a t's why he d o e sn 't lik e to u se n o te s. When he f ir s t c a m e to o ffic e a s P r e s id e n t, j he w ould not e v en u se a podium fo r h is p r e s s c o n fe r e n c e s le s t som eonej think he m igh t be h id in g a n ote c a r d o r so m e th in g . He w ould stand w ith h is hands behind h is back and a sin g le stan d m icro p h o n e in o r d e r , j I think, to e s ta b lis h th is n otion of sp o n ta n eity and c r e d ib ility : that what! ; ( he w as sa y in g w as r e a lly h is and not p rep a red fo r h im by so m eo n e i e l s e . I think it probab ly d o e s a ffe c t lis t e n e r s a little when they know he is rea d in g a p rep a red tex t. T h ere m igh t be a little m o re s k e p ti c i s m in v o lv ed . | C u r tis : A n other o b je ctio n is that the v o ter m ay g et fro m a i g h o stw r itte n sp e e c h a fa ls e im p r e s s io n of the P r e sid e n t; that so m eh o w , i b e c a u se o f the g h o s tw r ite r , what th e P r e s id e n t s a y s is n o t r e a lly h is . Is that a v a lid a rg u m en t? H u eb n er: I don't think so at a ll. E v ery th in g h e s a y s he m a k es h is ow n in the a c t o f sa y in g it. F r o m m y e x p e r ie n c e , h e 's n e v e r b een lin the p o sitio n of taking a c o ld te x t that he h a sn 't look ed at o r h a s on ly l s u p e r fic ia lly look ed a t, and b egan rea d in g it off. E v en if h e 's going to | [use a te x t, a s he did s o m e tim e s on the radio sp e e c h he g a v e in the 239 cam p aign th is f a ll- - e v e n if h e 's not going to ch an ge it v e r y m u ch , and I in te r je c t by sa y in g that h e a lw a y s ch a n g es it s o m e --b u t e v e n if the ch a n g es a re r e la tiv e ly fe w , on ly a few w ord s to a page o r so m e th in g , I've s e e n th e se te x ts w hen th ey c o m e back to h is s e c r e ta r y to be typed j into the la r g e r type that he u s e s fo r h is read in g cop y. H e's u n d er- i sc o r e d ju st about e v e r y w ord a s h e read it through and you ca n t e ll h e 's r e a lly thought about it. H e 's not about to be cau gh t sa y in g so m e - ■ i thing he h a sn 't c o n s id e r e d , thought about, and m ade h is own. In the | act o f doin g that and th en of d e liv e r in g it, he ta k es r e s p o n s ib ility fo r j the sp e e c h and can be h eld a cco u n ta b le fo r it. 1 think it is h is own. One e x c e p tio n m ig h t be a lon g w ritten docu m en t w h ere he m ay not have I had tim e to read it a ll o r c o n s id e r it. But he know s w hat he sig n s w hen he puts h is n am e to a M e ss a g e to C o n g r e ss on so m e c o m p lic a te d to p ic . A ll h is a d v is o r s in that a r e a have sig n ed o ff on it. At that i I p oin t, a s a good stew a rd of h is own tim e , he ju st sim p ly h a s to tr u st h is a d v is o r s enough to know that th is is an in stitu tio n a l p rod u ct that h e can now fo r m a lly m ake h is ow n and m ake " official" by adding h is sig n a tu re to it. C u r tis : I think that th e w ork you do w a s o r ig in a lly c a lle d " gh ostw ritin g" b e c a u se of the c la n d e stin e n atu re of its a c tiv itie s . H uebner: T h at's not a te r m that 1 h ave h ea rd u se d in W ash in g- I ton at a l l . j 240 C u rtis: It's a te r m that 1 think is u sed p r o fe s s io n a lly when , people w r ite about the fie ld . In r e sp o n se to a le tte r 1 se n t to a c o l- j lea g u e of y o u r s who is no lo n g e r h e r e , in q u irin g about th e p o s s ib ility f of an in te r v ie w , he a n sw ered by statin g: "It is a fir m p o licy of m in e not to d is c u s s m y a c tiv itie s as a sp e e c h w r ite r . I fe e l that th o se doing I th is w ork should r em a in a s anon ym ous as p o s s ib le ." D on 't you think i that th is kind of attitu d e e n c o u r a g e s m is im p r e s s io n s by the public and j i fo s t e r s th e ir su s p ic io n s o f sp e e c h w r ite r s ? j H uebner: W ell, m a y b e. I don't know . I think if it is done in i the s e n s e that th e r e is so m e th in g to h id e, that m igh t be the c a s e . On ' 1 1 the o th e r hand, I don 't know that it's p a r tic u la r ly u se fu l to go to the j o th er e x tr e m e , w h ich I think is s o m e tim e s the c a s e w ith o th er c a n d i- | ! i d a te s w h e r e , in add ition to rea d in g the sp e e c h th e n ex t m o rn in g , you I a ls o find out w hich of the sta b le of w r ite r s w ro te it. I don 't think that ! s e r v e s the can d id ate o r th e p o litic ia n o r the le a d e r v ery w e ll w hen th e i p eop le who are w orking fo r h im a r e so in ten t on le ttin g th e ir ow n c o n trib u tio n be know n p u b licly that e v er y th in g th a t's w ritten h a s th e ir sta m p on it in su ch an e v id en t w ay. I think th a t's too bad. 1 think part of our u s e fu ln e s s to the P r e s id e n t is the fa c t that we r em a in r e la tiv e ly f a c e le s s p eop le; n ot that w e a re h id in g. I go out sp ea k in g a lo t and | th a t's p erh a p s the on e o th e r p a rt of m y jo b , in ad d ition to w r itin g , th at h a s b e e n a r e g u la r th in g. E v e r y few w eek s I'm out on a cam p u s o r s o m e p la c e m ak in g a s p e e c h , te llin g about the p r o c e s s , and so on. 241 I think the p r o c e s s should be opened up in that s e n s e . But I'm quite i c a r e fu l not to - - and m ayb e I ’ve m ade an e x c e p tio n to it ev en in th is in te r v ie w --n o t to id en tify m y s e lf w ith a p a r ticu la r sp e e c h so that som eb od y can rea d th at sp e e c h and sa y . "G ee, th a t's not r e a lly the l 1 P r e sid e n t." j C u r tis : Do you have a s p e e c h w r ite r ? ! H u eb n er: N o, and I ca n 't im a g in e what it w ould be lik e to have | i on e. I C u r tis: Do you think it w ould be a c a d e m ic a lly ju stifia b le to i o ffer a c o u r s e in sp e e c h w r itin g ? H u eb n er: Oh, y e s . 1 think so . i C u r tis: Do you think it is n e c e s s a r y ? , H u eb n er: I think it w ould be a ste p forw ard ; a v ery sm a r t m o v e. But one p rob lem w ith it w ould be that the p r o c e s s is so d iff e r ent fr o m one p e r so n to an oth er. " G h ostw ritin g," that i s , w ritin g fo r 1 so m e o n e e l s e , co u ld n 't be taught u n le s s you knew who the p a r ticu la r " som eon e e ls e " w a s. So 1 g u e ss m y a n sw er is " y es," but I think it is a lrea d y b ein g don e. C u r tis : Do you think it is p o s s ib le to e ffe c tiv e ly a n a ly ze p r e s i d en tia l sp ea k in g , ack n ow led gin g th e in flu en ce of g h o s tw r ite r s ? H u eb n er: Oh, y e s , to so m e d e g r e e . 1 think you have to [ack n ow led ge that in flu en ce though and know about it. T h at's one of the l I j r e a lit ie s of the P r e s id e n c y . 242 i C urtis: In other w o rd s, you can't take the P re sid e n t's inaugu- i ral a d d r e ss and c r itiq u e it; you have to know who co n trib u ted to it and j in what w ays ? ' i H u eb n er: W eil, you c a n 't a lw a y s know that. 1 think you can I c r itiq u e the sp e e c h but you h ave to c r itiq u e it u n d erstan d in g that som e | J ! I o f the lin e s and p h r a s e s m ay h ave co m e fr o m v a r io u s p eo p le. You probably should know so m eth in g of the g e n e r a l p r o c e s s of the sp e e c h 's , i p r o g r e s s iv e s te p -b y - s te p p rep a ra tio n . 1 think that in the c a s e of th is j P r e s id e n t, you w ould know that a Bpeech lik e the in au gu ral a d d r e ss j w as one that he w o r r ie d about at g r ea t len gth and that he sp en t a lo t of tim e on h im s e lf. The m ista k e w ould be to do w hat so m e p sy c h o lo g ic a l I h is to r ia n s do and try to read se co n d a r y m ea n in g s of p e r so n a lity into | i the v a r io u s w ays he u sed th e se w ords in th is in s ta n c e , m ea n in g that ;he had a d ep riv ed ch ild h ood o r so m e th in g . If you a r e talk in g about ; su b c o n sc io u s and u n co n sc io u s m e a n in g s, th en I think y o u 're on rea l d an gerou s ground b e c a u se you m a y be rea d in g so m eb o d y e ls e ' s c h ild hood if you read th o se m ea n in g s in. C u rtis: What I am s p e c ific a lly r e fe r r in g to are lin e s of r e a so n in g , ty p e s o f a rg u m en t, the p e r o r a tio n , th e in trod u ction ; th e s e s o r ts of th in g s. 1 H u eb n er: I think th a t's fa ir . A n oth er r e a so n I think it is fa ir is that at le a s t w ith th is s ta ff--a n d th is m ay not be tru e o f a ll s p e e c h - w r it e r s - -w e try v e r y h ard to w r ite fo r th is m an a lo n e . We think p art of our s e r v ic e to the P r e s id e n t is to put th in g s into h is s t y le , both of f e x p r e s s io n and of r e a so n in g . A s I sa id e a r lie r , we d o n ’t have a l is t j of fiv e r u le s w r itte n dow n, but a s w e w rite we try a s m uch a s we can to w r ite fo r h is s ty le . We w r ite sa y in g , "If the P r e s id e n t had tim e to ! i w r ite th is , how w ould he do it?" E ven on so m e o c c a s io n 1 m igh t th in k ,, ! "G ee, if I w e re g iv in g th is sp e e c h 1 w ould u se th is e x a m p le , it w ould < r e a lly be t e r r if ic and it w ould probab ly be b e tte r than what I'm going j to u s e . But 1 know the P r e s id e n t w ouldn't want to u se that. It w on't add, and th e r e fo r e , I sh ould be try in g to s e r v e h im by doing what I i l think he w ould do if he had the tim e ." C u r tis : You are now a p r o fe s s io n a l w r ite r . W ere you a p r o fe s s io n a l w r ite r b e fo re you jo in ed the P r e s id e n t's sta ff? j ' H u eb n er: N o. I don't know how I e v e r got into a ll th is . I w as in grad u ate sc h o o l stu d yin g h is to r y , planning to go on and tea ch . I : t got in v o lv ed in an o r g a n iz a tio n c a lle d the R ipon S o c ie ty --w h ic h is a I r e s e a r c h g r o u p --a n d through that m et N ixon in the m id - s ix t ie s and w ent to w ork fo r him in 1968. I had done so m e w r itin g w ith th e R ipon S o c ie ty and that w as how he f ir s t m et m e . I se n t h im a p ap er that I had w ritten and got ta g g ed a s a w r ite r as a r e s u lt of th at. But it w as on ly a c c id e n ta l. C u rtis: What sp e e c h tra in in g have you had ? ! H uebner: Oh, I've had c o u r s e s in high sc h o o l and c o lle g e , but “ m y m a jo r sp e e c h tra in in g c a m e in in te r c o lle g ia te d eb a te. I did in t e r 244 s c h o la s tic debate both in high sc h o o l and c o lle g e and I w as a c tiv e in i i d eb ate at N o r th w este rn U n iv e r sity w hen I w as an u n d ergrad u ate, b ein g i th e r e fo r four y e a r s . That w as the big thing X did in c o lle g e b e c a u se th ey had a v e r y in te n siv e p ro g ra m . I think 1 can go back in a sp e e c h I you m en tion ed e a r lie r that y o u 'v e got of m in e and go back to m y debate tra in in g and tr y to pull out so m e of the th in gs I'm app lyin g now . I i I a ls o co a ch ed debate at B oston U n iv e r sity and la te r H a rvard . 1 a lso { taught a v a r ie ty o f sp e e c h c o u r s e s during su m m e r s at N o r th w e ste r n 's j j N ational H igh S ch ool In stitu te in S p eech . I probab ly h ave had m o re | I I fo r m a l a c a d e m ic sp e e c h e x p o su r e than any of th e o th er w r ite r s h e r e . ! j C u rtis: Did you have any tra in in g in w r itin g s p e e c h e s fo r other! j p eop le b e fo re you c a m e to w ork h e r e ? i H uebner: N o, non e. The only p e r so n I h ave r e a lly e v e r w r it- iten fo r is N ixon. i C u r tis : H ow a r e you g iv en str u c tu r a l c r e d it in th e W hite H ou se o r g a n iz a tio n a l c h a r t? A re you c a lle d a sp e e c h w r ite r ? If n o t, w hat are !you c a lle d ? I H u eb n er: E veryb od y b elo n g s to one of the s u b -s ta ffs . The W hite H ouse is broken down into su b ord in ate u n its and I'm p art of the "W riting and R e se a r c h Staff." E veryb od y h e r e is p art of th at p a r tic u la r sta ff and R ay P r ic e is in c h a r g e . T hen a c r o s s the w h ole W hite i H o u se, ev ery b o d y h as th e ir ow n in d ivid u al s ta ffs . i i ■ C u rtis: I've tr ie d to p rovid e an a c c u r a te , c le a r p ic tu r e in m y I J q u e stio n s. Is th e r e anything about what you do that I h a v en 't touched i j on that you think I ought to g iv e a tten tion to , or h a s you r w ork been | fa ir ly r e p r e s e n te d ? j H u eb n er: I think it h a s been p retty c o m p r e h e n siv e . Your [ fo c u s , a s I u n d erstan d it, is r e a lly on the p r o c e s s of w ritin g . Is that , | righ t ? ■ C u rtis: Y e s. Is th e r e any one p a r ticu la r thin g that you w ould i lik e to have m e go aw ay fro m h e r e u n d erstan d in g " p er fec tly c le a r " ; j so m e th in g 1 ought to u n d erstan d m o r e than anything e ls e about what ' < you do ? j i H u eb n er: I think w e'v e talk ed about two o r th r ee th in gs that I think a r e c e n tr a l. One is th e fa ct that i t ’s not a s c ie n c e . It d iffe r s | | ’fr o m day to day and it d iffe r s fr o m m an to m an o r w om an to w om an. |T o know w hat th is job is lik e f ir s t of a ll m ea n s know ing who you a r e |w ritin g fo r , b e c a u se that w ill change the job . T h ere is no a b s tr a c t w ay to talk about it a p art fr o m the p e r so n you a r e w ritin g fo r . And se c o n d ly , e v en w ith that p e r so n , the job w ill ch an ge depend ing upon l jhis sc h e d u le , h is tim e , h is in c lin a tio n s, the n atu re of the o c c a s io n , 'the a u d ien ce , s o that ea ch sp e e c h is d iffe r e n t fr o m any o th e r . But then g iv en th o se two w a rn in g s th en , m o s t of the th in gs w e 'v e sa id a r e b a sic and r e p r e se n ta tiv e . i i j 246 ! W illiam G avin j i C u r tis : What is the p r o ced u ra l n atu re o f what you did w hen you w e re w ith th e P r e s id e n t? F or in s ta n c e , did he c a ll you on the phone and s a y , "why don 't you c o m e o v e r ," did he sen d you a m e m o , ju s t howj i did the sp e e c h d e v e lo p ? j G avin : I can te ll you e x a c tly how it h ap pened, but y ou 've got to j d iv id e it into two p e r io d s: (1) the p r e -p r e s id e n tia l p e r io d , and (2) the j j p r e sid e n tia l p e r io d . The p r e -p r e s id e n tia l p e r io d w as one of a lm o st nol kind of o r g a n iz a tio n at a ll, r e a lly by any s e n s e . 1 w ould g et stu ff from I 1 Lien G arm en t, who w ould c o m e up to m e and sa y , "L ook, w e need a cou p le of id e a s on B la ck c a p ita lism ," so I w ould w r ite a m em o to L en I and he w ould p r e se n t it to the can d id ate [N ixon]. R ight n ow , L en G a r- j m en t i s s p e c ia l c o u n se l to the P r e s id e n t. He w as a c tiv e b e fo r e the ! e le c tio n [1968] a s a la w y e r in the P r e s id e n t's fir m . He w as so r t of a | ja ck of a ll tr a d e s m an. L en w as the m an through w hom I ev en tu a lly c a m e into the N ixon o r g a n iza tio n . On oth er o c c a s io n s , R ay P r ic e app roach ed m e w ith an a ssig n m e n t and e v e n on a cou p le of o c c a sio n s !the can d id ate h im s e lf sp oke to m e d ir e c tly . B ut 1 w as n e v e r in a p o s i tion of in flu en ce o r pow er w h ere he w ould sp ea k to m e d ir e c tly a ll the tim e . O b v io u sly , he w ou ld n't h ave to. So, m o s t of the stu ff in that p r e -p r e s id e n tia l p e r io d c a m e h e lt e r - s k e lt e r . F o r e x a m p le , about tw o i w eek s b e fo re the M iam i C on ven tion in 1968, L en c a m e up and sa id , i "H ey, you gonna sen d in so m eth in g on th e in a u g u ra l a d d r e s s o r th e 247 | i . 1 i I a c ce p ta n c e th in g --s u g g e s tio n s o r so m eth in g lik e that?" So 1 sa id ( okay and m y su g g e stio n s w ent through Len fo r the a c c e p ta n c e . When t i N ixon w on the n o m in a tio n , we en tered what 1 c a ll th e p r e sid e n tia l j p eriod and N ixon b e c a m e h igh ly str u c tu r e d , and at the point of the str u c tu r e w e 'r e talk in g about w as a guy n am ed Jim K eogh, who w as j i the e x e c u tiv e e d ito r of T im e m a g a zin e. J im b e c a m e the honcho of the j w hole w ritin g d e a l at that poin t. A ll a ss ig n m e n ts flo w ed through h im j a n d /o r any su g g e s tio n s w ent to h im fo r the ca n d id a te. P r ic e h as h is j i job now . A s u su a l in p o litic a l th in g s, you can 't sa y "one is o n e," but < Ray now g iv e s out the a s s ig n m e n ts . A s in e v e r y o th e r p o litic a l ‘ I sc h e m e of th in g s, that thing [the K eogh sy s te m ] o p era ted m o st of the tim e . But in c e r ta in c a s e s th e r e w ere e x c e p tio n s . F or in s ta n c e , P a t < B uchanan o r R ay P r ic e probably got stu ff d ir e c tly fr o m the ca n d id a te, i but it w as a ll c o o rd in a ted w ith J im . I c e r ta in ly got it th rou gh Jim and that con tin u ed a s long a s 1 w as at the W hite H o u se. I n e v e r got a d ir e c t 'c a ll fro m the P r e s id e n t on any g iv en a ssig n m e n t w h ile I w as at the . W hite H ou se. C u rtis: How long did you sta y ? G avin : I w as th e r e fr o m Janu ary 20, 1969 u n til July 1970. C u r tis : Why did you le a v e ? G avin: F o r a num ber of v e r y c o m p lic a te d r e a s o n s . O ne, : look in g back at it now , 1 fe lt that at w h ere I w as in the w r itin g g am e in ith e W hite H ouse 1 w a sn 't g oin g to m o v e up. I w a sn 't g oin g to be doing I 2 4 8 1 j I 'any m a jo r sp e e c h e s and I w as not p a r tic u la r ly s a tis fie d w ith the kind of- t stu ff I had been d oin g. F o r the m o st p a rt, it w as " rem ark s" : le t t e r s , j te le g r a m s , and stu ff lik e that. I ca n , in p a r e n th e se s, sa y that th is w a sn 't a d isco n ten t; it w a sn 't a gnaw ing or b itte r d isc o n te n t. It w as kind of an id ea that 1 w anted to do s p e e c h e s or to do so m eth in g e ls e . .The fa c t is that 1 knew 1 w a sn 't going to be able to do it th e r e . Second,! : i r o v e r a p erio d of tim e , I found that I m et m y s e lf co m in g in th e d oor. . F o r e x a m p le , in 1969--a n d I'm m akin g th is u p --y o u w ould do the Boy \ Scout Day p r o c la m a tio n and a ll of a su dd en it is 1970 and you a r e doing! E the Boy Scout Day p r o c la m a tio n again . W ell, anyw ay, I don't c a r e who he i s , goin g th rou gh that kind of thing m a k e s a guy b egin to w onder w hy. I w as ju st lo sin g the touch for the thin g. T h ird , s in c e 1 had beer a te a c h e r , 1 thought 1 m igh t m ak e th is m on ey and then go back into tea c h in g . W ell, 1 w ent to the D ep a rtm en t of H ea lth , E d u cation and W elfa re, but that didn't w ork out fo r v a r io u s c o m p lic a te d r e a s o n s , so i I w ent on to the U .S . In fo rm ation A gen cy w ith F ran k S h a k e sp ea r e and ;w as th e re fo r a w h ile . But I s t r e s s th is highly: the r e a so n I le ft the I W hite H ou se had a b so lu te ly nothing to do w ith b itte r n e s s o r any fe e lin g that 1 w a sn 't b ein g u se d . 1 u n d ersto o d th e s y s te m . I'd e x a m in e d it. I don 't know w h eth er th e r e a r e b etter w a y s of doing it. M aybe th e re i i |a r e fo r the P r e s id e n t of the U nited S ta te s , but by and la r g e I think i {when 1 w as th e r e that w as the w ay it had to go. C u rtis: Did you do anything o th e r than sp e e c h w r itin g th in g s? G avin: Oh, ye ah. I think w hen you talk about sp e e c h w r itin g i t 1 * a m is n o m e r , f ir s t of a ll. It's the w o r st p o s s ib le n am e fo r w hat it is w e do. You sh ould g et an oth er n am e fo r it, w h a tev er th e thing is that we do. In the W hite H o u se, 1 w orked on v a r ie d th in g s, su ch a s what | we c a lle d " rem a rk s." Now " rem a rk s" a r e d iffe r e n t fr o m " sp e ec h e s" in that th ey are u su a lly m ean t to be te n ta tiv e in natu re and a r e not i i m ean t to be lite r a lly rea d fro m anything. C u r tis: T hey a re not h igh ly str u c tu r e d ? Gavin: Not n e c e s s a r ily . They can be and th ey ca n 't b e , it d e - I I pends on what happens and it a lso in v o lv e s an aw ful lo t o f r e s e a r c h . S o m e tim e s I w ould sa y to the g ir ls in r e s e a r c h , "H ey, g iv e m e s ix o r se v e n books on T h om as J e ffe r s o n ," and 1 w ould ju st go through th em j I and find a quote I thought w as good and sen d it to the P r e s id e n t. S o m e tim e s the P r e s id e n t w ould u se the r e m a r k s , s o m e tim e s he w ould take the r em a rk and in te r p r e t it in h is ow n w ay, and o th er tim e s he w ould ig n o re it c o m p le te ly . But th o se w e re the d a y -to -d a y th in g s and lit w a s p retty good . It can turn out to be a p r e tty good thing b e c a u se I s o m e tim e s you a r e w ork in g under a d ea d lin e and you have to c o m e up w ith so m eth in g th a t's goin g to g iv e him an id e a of what to sa y and a lm o st anybody who h a s w ork ed w ith the P r e s id e n t w ill te ll you that. ■ I have on ly w ork ed fo r J im B u c k le y , the V ic e - P r e s id e n t , and the P r e s id e n t and no s in g le one of th em ta k e s r e m a r k s and r ea d s th em lik e that. I ju s t don 't know of anyone who d o e s it. A lo t of p eop le j 250 h ave the im p r e s s io n that it 's done that w ay. It isn 't. Then th e r e w ere th in gs o th er than " rem ark s" ; th in gs su ch a s s p e c ia l k in d s of le tt e r s . Som ebody th in k s it 's im p o rta n t to h ave not ju st a reg u la r fo rm le tte r go ou t, but so m e th in g w ith a lit t le s p e c ia l tr e a tm e n t, so I'd d ra ft a | le tte r and then e v e n tu a lly it w ent through the w hole p r o c e s s . C u r tis : T his le tte r w ould go o v e r the P r e s id e n t's sig n a tu r e ? I G avin : T his w ould go o v e r h is sig n a tu re a b so lu te ly and th ere w ould be a d raft o f the le tte r . T his is the im p o rta n t th in g. T hen th ere w e re p r o c la m a tio n s --g o o d o ld p r o c la m a tio n s --in w h ich the poor P r e s id en t h as to p r o c la im e v e r y th in g . We did the m e s s a g e s fo r the p r o c - ! la m a tio n s and th e r e w ere su ch a v a r ie d num ber o f them : the a s t r o nauts going on t e le v is io n , e tc . I s t r e s s two th in gs about m y r e s p o n s i b ilitie s . F ir s t , th ey w e r e v a r ie d in n atu re and you r e a lly co u ld n 't p r e d ic t fr o m day to day, and se c o n d , c o n c er n in g the d r a fts, th ey w ere I the kinds of th in g s that you w ould know , w h ere m ayb e the la y m a n w ou ld n't. F o r the m o st p art, fo r any p o litic a l guy who is w orth h is s a lt at a ll, you w ould be doin g d r a fts , not c o m p le te t e x ts . G uys who I a r e " w riter s" and not " s p e e c h w r i t e r s i t s o m e tim e s d r iv e s th em out of th e ir m in d s. A lo t of tim e s i t ’s h a rd , but the thing about it is that d r a fts a r e p a rt of the job. C u rtis: T e ll m e about the y e llo w le g a l pad n otion . Is that r e a lly tr u e , in you r e x p e r ie n c e ? Is that the way the P r e s id e n t p r e - l p a r e s h is m a jo r a d d r e s s e s ? j zrr i G avin: 1 sa w the P r e s id e n t w ith a y e llo w le g a l pad on the plane i in 1968 b e fo re he b eca m e P r e s id e n t. 1 have a c tu a lly s e e n h im w ith the y e llo w pad, w ritin g r e m a r k s fo r h im s e lf. The a n sw er to you r q u estion is y e s and no. Y e s , he d o es u se the pad, but I think any p o litic a l f ig - | u r e --a n d I'm not sp ea k in g about h im p a r tic u la r ly n o w --te n d s to m o re e d it h is s p e e c h e s than w r ite th e m . In oth er w o r d s, it 's a v e r y str a n g e thin g about s p e e c h w r it e r s , ev ery b o d y know s that e v e r y m a jo r p o litic a l fig u r e h a s o n e , but nobody lik e s to ad m it it. W ell, the fa c t of the mat-I te r is th ey do h ave s p e e c h w r ite r s , it 's tru e. And the sp e e c h w r ite r s doj w r ite s p e e c h e s fo r th em . B ut w hat th e P r e s id e n t, the V ic e -P r e s id e n t, and S en a to r B u ck ley d o, b e c a u se th ey a r e the on ly th r e e guys 1 h ave w ork ed fo r , is take th e s e d r a fts and put th e m s e lv e s into the th in g. If ! J you w ork fo r th em , the draft you a r e goin g to put in w ill be o f su ch a n atu re that v a r io u s w ays of v e r b a l b eh a v io r w ill be out of it. You w ill i kn ow , for in s ta n c e , that N ix o n ’s not going to sa y X , Y , or Z. You w ill know that and fr o m th e r e th ey w ill tak e your d r a fts. V ery o ften a draft igiven to the P r e s id e n t is goin g to tu rn out to be a p roof copy on ly. 'Y ou'll w ish you'd be a b le to p roof it, but it a lm o s t a lw a y s ch a n g es by the tim e it b e c o m e s a fin a l p rod u ct. T h ere a re e x c e p tio n s to th is lik e w hen, under g r e a t p r e s s u r e s of tim e , the c o r r e c tio n s or e d ito r ia l I ch a n g es w ill be m in im a l, but fo r the m o st p a r t, the thin g that c o m e s out of h is m outh is h is . M aybe a s a sp e e c h w r ite r th is is d is lo y a l to i [the p r o fe s s io n , but a s fa r a s the p eop le I have w orked f o r , th is is tru e. 1 _____________________________________ , C u rtis: Is it c o r r e c t to sa y that the m a in id e a s o r ig in a te w ith the P r e s id e n t? In oth er w o rd s, you don 't c r e a te the m ain id e a s and send th em up to h im ? G avin: H ere is an oth er sc h o la r ly su b d iv isio n fo r you r d i s s e r tation . I d iv id e s p e e c h w r ite r s into two c a te g o r ie s . S o m e tim e s m o st i I w r ite r s co m b in e both of th e se w ithin h im s e lf. T h ere are " w riters" ! and th e r e a r e "idea m en ." An id e a m an is e x a c tly w hat the n am e im p lie s . J u st fo r the r e c o r d , m y c o n c e p t of a good id ea m an is B ill | S a fir e . B ill h a s a su p erab u n d an ce of id e a s . Now it's no d is s e r v ic e ' to B ill o r any id e a m an to sa y to h im "ninety p e r c e n t of them sim p ly I a r en 't w orkab le but of the ten p e r ce n t r e m a in in g , m ayb e eig h t out of I ten of them a r e n 't any good but two m ay be dam n good." Now the id e a s in th is p a r tic u la r in sta n ce a re not goin g to be id e a s about g r a n - id io se fo r e ig n p o lic y s c h e m e s . It m igh t be an id e a c o n cern in g a c e r - i tain r h e to r ic a l ap p roach th e P r e s id e n t m ig h t take tow ard so m eth in g or \ so m e s o r t o f an ap p earan ce he m igh t m ak e w h ich w ould b etter d r a m a tiz e so m eth in g he v e ry stro n g ly b e lie v e s in but h as no w ay o f g ettin g I o v e r to the public about. So, in a n sw e r to you r q u e s tio n --a n d a g a in , I can o n ly sp eak fro m m y own e x p e r ie n c e - - if you are w ork in g fo r any o f the gu ys I h ave w orked fo r , you b e tter know p r e tty m uch the p a r a m e te r s of the id e a . You know th ere a r e c e r ta in th in g s th at Jim B u ck ley I sim p ly is not goin g to c o n sid e r and if you c o n s id e r th o se th in g s, you I sh ou ld n 't be w orking fo r h im , you sh ould be w orking fo r so m eb o d y e ls e . T h at's not to sa y that your id e a s a r e n e c e s s a r ily w ron g, but j u s t that y o u 'r e not the guy fo r h im . W ithin th at w h ole range of id e a s , w h o ev er it h ap p en s to be that y o u 'r e w ritin g fo r , you a r e going to have o p p o rtu n ities to p r e se n t w ays of ap p roach in g. In o th er w o r d s, the i b a s ic id e a m ig h t be X , w ith the P r e s id e n t w anting to do it a c e r ta in ! I I w ay. T his is h is p o lic y and it a lw a y s h as b een , but you m ay c o m e up I w ith an id e a of p r e se n tin g it to the public in a c e r ta in kind of w ay, u sin g an an alogy o r a n e c d o te. The P r e s id e n t, a s you probab ly have t found by th is tim e , is a g r e a t lo v e r o f a n e c d o te s a s a way of gettin g \ i o v e r to the public so m e th in g w h ich g iv e s the id e a . Tanya is a p e r fe c t j e x a m p le . Now w h ere he got the id ea fr o m , 1 don 't know; w hether he got it h im s e lf o r w h eth er so m eb o d y s u g g e s te d it to h im . The point i s , !he g e ts it, in te g r a te s it into h is own p e r so n a lity , in te g r a te s it into h is ow n sp e e c h ; he c o m e s out and it 's h is . T h at's im p o rta n t to know . 1 i I can g iv e h im s ix te e n a n e c d o te s w h ich he m ig h t look at and c o m p le te ly ;r e je c t. When he s e e s the one he w a n ts, th a t's the one he w ants and he u s e s it. He g o e s after it and lik e ly c h a n g e s it. S e e , you n e v e r know i fr o m tim e to tim e what th e o r ig in o f one of th e s e is . C u r tis : Do you c o lle c t a n e c d o te s? G avin: N o, and I 'll t e ll you w hy. It's a v e ry ch an cy b u s in e s s . jOnce m o r e y o u 'r e lim ite d in you r a n e c d o te s to th e p e r so n fo r w hom !you a r e w o rk in g . T h ere a r e v e ry fo lk s y , h o m ey a n e c d o te s w h ich m ay - jbe S e n a to r s can u se h e r e , but the P r e s id e n t w ould n e v e r u se th em . 'T here a r e o th e r k in d s o f a n e c d o te s w hich S en ator B u ck ley o r a c o n s e r v a tiv e m igh t u se that the P r e s id e n t m igh t not u s e . So 1 don't r e a lly think that it is p o s s ib le to c o lle c t th em . I have e v en gone so fa r a s to lo o k at an e n c y c lo p e d ia o f a n e c d o te s , but it ju st didn't w o r k --fo r m e , r anyw ay. C u rtis: D o e s the P r e s id e n t h ave c e r ta in s p e c ia lis t s , su ch as i a lite r a r y s p e c ia lis t o r an a rg u m en ta tio n s p e c ia lis t ? j ! G avin : N ot a c c o r d in g to th o se a r e a s . O nce a g a in , we tu rn to i v e ry g e n e r a l t e r m s , but w hen 1 w as th e r e 1 think you cou ld probably e x p e c t B ill S a fir e to do d ra fts on e c o n o m ic s . T h at's p retty m uch the I way it w ork ed . That d o e sn 't m ean he did on ly e c o n o m ic s , but th e re I w as a p retty good ch a n ce h e'd do th at. F o r e ig n a ffa ir s w as a m uch I m o re d iffic u lt thing to ta lk about. I'm not su r e w h ere th ey r e a lly I I c a m e up w ith th o se d r a fts. i i I C u rtis: Then th e r e r e a lly a r e n 't any p r e s c r ib e d d iv is io n s ? G avin: N o, n ot that I w as a w a re of and non e under w h ich I c e r ta in ly w ork ed . C u rtis: D o es the P r e s id e n t g e n e r a lly h a v e an o c c a s io n to sp ea k and th en find a p u rp o se , or d o e s he h ave a d e s ir e to p ersu a d e and th en find an o c c a s io n ? G avin: W ell, a g a in , it d epend s on m any fa c to r s . M any of h is I p r o c e d u r e s a r e fr o z e n . In o th e r w o r d s , you c a n 't g e t out of th e th in g s [lik e p r o c la m a tio n s , sta te of the union a d d r e s s e s , m e s s a g e s to Con 255 g r e s s , e tc . But o th er sp e e c h o c c a s io n s w ill happen lik e the N orth j | j V ie tn a m e se do X , the South V ie tn a m e se do Y, and you'd b etter be ready on T h u rsd ay to sa y Z. T h ere is ju st no way out of it. Y ou 're going to do it on T h ursday o r on F rid a y and th a t's the lim it. You a r e j j going to sp ea k about c e r ta in ly a co n fin ed su b je ct. But su p p o se the j P r e s id e n t w ants to m ak e a m a jo r a d d r e ss on the su b je ct of drug c o n - i tr o l and he d o e sn 't h ave it in th e sch e d u le co m in g up. The c h a n c e s . a re that so m e o n e is goin g to find so m e kind of a v e h ic le . The r e a so n ; ! that it is so e a s y to find a v e h ic le is that h e ’s d elu ged w ith sp eak in g ! r e q u e s ts . 1 d on 't know how m an y, probab ly th ou san d s a w eek . So he has the w h ole w orld to c h o o se fr o m . S o m e tim e s he w ill sa y , "Find m e a p la ce w h ere I can g iv e th is sp e e c h on X ." It's e a s y to do. i I C u rtis: When you w e re w ritin g fo r the P r e s id e n t, w ould you i iw rite the w h ole sp e e c h and th en r e v is e it , w r ite a page and then go I lover th a t, or w r ite a se n te n c e and then r e str u c tu r e it ? G avin: I tend to w r ite a w hole sp e e c h and then r e v is e it. Now that d o e sn 't m ean 1 w on 't r e v ie w it a s 1 go a lo n g , but th a t's the way I w ork . T h ere a r e tim e s when 1 have h it upon a p aragrap h w h ich I lik ed and b u ilt around it. T h ere is an old p r o c e s s in w r itin g c a lle d "cutting and p astin g" and that kind o f r e v is io n hap p en s a lo t, but I tend to do the ;sp e e c h a s a w h ole and th en go b ack , u su a lly c r o s s in g out stu ff and a lso w r itin g in stu ff, so th at by the tim e th e thing is fin ish e d it's a w hole sp e e c h . 256 l I C u r tis: Do you e v e r read a sp eech after you have w ritten it | to s e e how it sou nd s o r a lly ? G avin: I've found that it d o e sn 't h elp m e at a ll. In o th er l w o r d s , it d o e sn 't h e lp m e in the w ay it h a s o th er s p e e c h w r ite r s . The j im p o rta n t thing is fo r s p e e c h w r ite r s to g iv e the m an th ey a r e w ritin g fo r so m eth in g he is going to be a b le to u s e . S o m e tim e s when you read ; 5 the sp e e c h , you d is c o v e r th e r e 's a lon g se n te n c e and you h ave got to |w rite in a p au se fo r b r e a th , so you ch an ge it. R eading aloud h e lp s ! th e r e , but the im p o rta n ce of read in g th e sp e e c h is fo r rhythm . When i you r m an g e ts the d raft of the s p e e c h , he is going to do h is ow n rhythm on it anyw ay, so it 's a w a ste of tim e to try to get h is rh yth m s into a f ir s t d ra ft. S en ator B u ck ley h a s a c e r ta in kind of rhythm , the V ice P r e s id e n t h a s a n o th er, and the P r e s id e n t h as s t ill an o th er. E ach m an [has h is own little thin g. j ; C u r tis : D o you know if the P r e s id e n t r e h e a r s e s h is s p e e c h e s ? i I G avin : 1 d on 't know that. C u r tis : You d id n 't e v e r s e e h im ? G avin : N o . C u rtis: Did you w ork w ith o th e r s p e e c h w r ite r s , o r did you w ork m o stly alon e on s p e e c h e s ? G avin : F o r the m o st p a r t, 1 w ork a lo n e. When w e u se the w ord " sp eech ," w e a r e talk in g about th is w h ole b road ran ge o f th in g s. JNo , 1 a lw a y s w ork ed a lo n e . B ut that d o e sn 't n e c e s s a r ily m ea n that the thin g I had been w orking with w asn't going to be w orked on by som ebody e ls e . C u r tis: But you n ev er c o lla b o r a ted to g eth er on a sp e e c h ? G avin: N o, I can 't rem em b er any righ t now. C u r tis: How m uch atten tion do you g iv e to au d ien ces when you w r ite ? Do you g e n e r a lly know who the au d ien ce is going to b e? G avin: T hat's of u tm o st im p ortan ce. C u r tis: You n e v e r w rite without knowing who you a r e w ritin g t o ? G avin: W ell, if you a r e doing a radio th in g, y ea h , but if you are going to sp eak to a sp e c ific au d ien ce, the m o re sp e c ific in fo r m a tio n you can find out about the au d ien ce, the b etter y o u 'll be. C u r tis : Is it a ccu ra te to say that the P r e s id e n t's p erso n a l in v o lv em en t in the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s in c r e a s e s as the im p ortan ce of the o c c a sio n in c r e a s e s ? G avin: That is a g e n e r a lly tru e sta tem en t. C u r tis: If you w e re try in g to put it into p e r c e n ta g e s, what p e r cen ta g e of the P r e sid e n t's sp eak ing is tr a n sc r ip t a s op p osed to e x te m p oran eou s ? G avin: W ell, then you g e t back to two thin gs: you get back to the g r ea t d iv isio n in a ll sp ee ch w r itin g , w hich is what I c a ll " sp eech es" jand " rem a rk s." S p eech es ju st about 100 p e r ce n t h e 's read in g. R e - i m a rk s can go anyw here fro m 10 p ercen t reading to 90 p e r ce n t ex tern - 258 p o ra n eo u s. W e're talk in g about the P r e s id e n t now . The P r e sid e n t is an u n p a r a lle led e x te m p o r a n e o u s sp e a k e r . He is e x c e lle n t n ex t to any. Now a s 1 sa id , w hen he g e ts up w ithou t n o te s , he m ay u se an a n e c d o te, he m ay e v e n u se a se n te n c e you w r o te , but it is h is "on the f e e t no n o tes" kind of thing that m a k es the thin g go. J im K eogh on ce sa id , t t " P r e sid e n t N ixon is p rob ab ly the on ly m an in public life w ho, in an ' " ■ i ex te m p o r a n e o u s sp e e c h , ca n g et h is v erb a g r e e m e n ts c o r r e c t." It's tr u e , r e a lly . J u st look at so m e of the tr a n s c r ip ts of h is p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e s . E v ery th in g ju st a ll h old s to g e th e r . H e is ju st an a b so lu te ly a m a zin g e x te m p o r a n e o u s sp e a k e r . O ne of the str a n g e th in g s 1 have n e v e r b een ab le to u n d erstan d is why he is n 't g iv en m o r e c r e d it for that. It's a r a r e a rt. T h ere a re p eo p le who can do the sa m e sp e e c h o v e r and o v e r again w ithout n o te s o n ce it 's m e m o r iz e d ; I know a cou p le [of p eo p le who can do th a t, although none of the p eop le I've w orked fo r have e v e r done th at. But in o r d e r to g e t up b e fo re a group of a th o u s and o r se v e n hundred p eo p le o r so m e th in g lik e that and w ing an aw ful ! l o t of it is an a r t and he can do it. i C u r tis : U sin g your d iv is io n s th en of " sp e ec h e s" a s o p p osed to i the " ex tem p o ra n eo u s," how m u ch of the P r e s id e n t's o r a l p e r fo r m a n c e is "sp eak in g" a s o p p o sed to " ex tem p o ra n eo u s" d e liv e r y ? Is it about 7 5 -2 5 ? G avin : Q u a n tita tiv ely , 1 w ou ld sa y that m o st o f it is w ith a m in im u m of n o te s . I've n e v e r s e e n the P r e s id e n t w ith n o te s. He 259 | I d oes a lm o st a ll of h is stu ff w ithout n o te s. j ; I C u r tis: No n o tes at a ll? G avin: Not that I've e v e r se e n . What he d o es; when h e ’s going to fa ce w h oever it happens to b e, h e 'll have you r m em orand um in front of h im , look at it b efo re going in th e re and go fo r 2 5 m in u tes ju st lik e . i that. The im p ortan t thing about him is h is a b ility to take a se n te n c e , ! ; i p h ra se, or som eth in g that you have put in and do an im p r o v isa tio n . He can do th is and do it te r r ific a lly . I've se e n h im do it. But nobody knows he is doing it. I'm am azed that no one h as e v e r w ritten about l th is. T here is a c a r r y -o v e r ph rase fro m the Lyndon Johnson a d m in i str a tio n c a lle d "R ose G arden R ubbish"; u sed to denote the kind of stuff that the P r e sid e n t d e liv e r s b efore he has given it adequate tim e . O b v io u sly , the fa c t of the m a tter is that it's not rubbish; it's e x tr e m e ly 'im p ortan t. It's the P r e sid e n t talking to the Boy S cou ts o r in Podunk, M ich igan , or so m eth in g . E veryth in g the P r e sid e n t s a y s , w h eth er e x tem p o ra n eo u s o r fo rm a l te x t, is im p ortan t sim p ly b eca u se it's the i I P r e sid e n t sp eak in g. C u r tis : Could you w rite for the P r e sid e n t if you had id e o lo g ic a l d isa g r e e m e n ts with h im o v e r fundam ental is s u e s ? The r ea so n 1 ask th is is b e c a u se I spoke w ith one P r e sid e n tia l w r ite r who sa id that part i of the p e r fe c tin g of the c r a ft of w ritin g is o n e 's a b ility to d is a s s o c ia te h im s e lf w ith h is own id e o lo g ic a l p r e ju d ic e s. In oth er w o r d s, he sa id i ih e could w rite for R ich ard N ixon and G eorge M cG overn w ithout 260 batting an eye. G avin: A b so lu tely no way in the w orld I could do that. C u r tis: T his w r ite r fu rth er sa id that the m ark of a p erfected c ra ftsm a n w as h is a b ility to d iv o r ce h im se lf fro m h is own p r e ju d ic e s. G avin: I think if you a r e talking about c ra ftsm a n sh ip , that is I probably tr u e . If you sa id to m e righ t now , "As an e x e r c is e , do a ! j M cG overn sp ee ch . . . I C u rtis: He sa id w ork fo r h im . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i G avin: T h at's an e n tir e ly d iffe re n t thing. j C u r tis: You don't think you co u ld ? I G avin: I know I could not. j ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i I C u r tis : Did you e v e r find y o u r s e lf d isa g r e e in g w ith the P r e s i- j dent on what you w r o te, what he w anted? If s o , what did you do about i t ? I | G avin: When you get back to the o rg a n iza tio n a l setu p , I think it's e a s ie r to u n d erstan d . You m u st rem em b er what the organ ization al setu p w as fro m m y p e r sp e c tiv e . It w as from the W hite H ouse to Jim K eogh to m e , and fro m m e to J im to the W hite H ou se. When it got back to J im , he ed ited it or e ls e sim p ly put it away and gave the a ssig n m e n t to som eb od y e ls e . M any tim e s , an approach I would take w ould e ith e r be r e je c te d out of hand by Jim and I n ev er q u estion ed it. 1 That w as the way it w a s . ! j C u rtis: It n e v e r hurt your fe e lin g s ? G avin: It hurt m y fe e lin g s lik e h e ll. When you 're a w r ite r , j you get your fe e lin g s hurt e v e r y day. Sure it hurt. But you shouldn't be in the b u sin e ss if y o u 're not n eu ro tic enough to get your fee lin g s hurt. Sure it cru sh ed m e. It s t ill d o e s. It alw ays w ill. W herever you a r e , of c o u r se it 's going to hurt you, but y o u 're in the w rong b u si-| : J n e s s if y o u 're too s e n s itiv e to take that. j C u r tis : Did you e v er give any com m en t to the P r e sid e n t on fac-j | to r s lik e d e liv e r y , u se of v o ice and g e s tu r e s , that so r t of th in g? In { j o th er w o rd s, thin gs oth er than ju st sp ee ch w r itin g ? ! G avin: D uring the cam p aign [1968] on two o c c a sio n s we spoke to th e can d id ate. The P r e sid e n t spoke to m e p e r so n a lly and to another fe llo w who is s t ill at the W hite H ouse as a c o u n se llo r . We talked aboul the u se of g e s tu r e s and c ro w d s, but I forgot what su g g e stio n I m ade. !It had som eth in g to do w ith kid s at the tim e . He liste n e d to it and that j I I w as the la st I e v e r h eard of it. But beyond that, that q u estion could i i ! I be b etter a d d r e sse d to the guys who w ere in the te le v is io n end of it in ; 1968, b e c a u se h is public stum p sty le w as m atu red and fr o z e n by 1968. He w as not going to change h is stum p sty le . But h is te le v is io n guys j m ay have g iv en h im ad vice on g e s tu r e s , C u r tis: L et m e bounce so m e o b jectio n s off you that so m e of m y fello w c r it ic s have v o iced co n cern in g what you do. E ss e n tia lly Iwhat they o b ject to is that sp eech w ritin g c la im s it le g itim a c y on th e i p latform of "b u syn ess" ; the P r e sid e n t is ju st too busy to be in volved iwith sp ea k in g , so he r e ta in s s p e e c h w r ite r s . H ow do you r e a c t? Is 'that a le g itim a te c o m p la in t, that the P r e s id e n t sh ou ld not be too busy to do h is ow n sp e e c h w o rk ? G avin: I don 't think that it is le g itim a te . He is b u sy . But if I can r e p h r a se w hat I think th e ir co m p la in t is: "Ah huh! T his guy is so j busy doing o th e r th in gs that he d o e sn 't think for h im s e lf and le ts o th e r j p eop le do h is thinking fo r h im as w e ll a s h is w ritin g and th en he ju st r ea d s the stu ff." If that w ere tr u e , sp e e c h w r itin g would be an a b o m i- i ! n ab le a r t. But it 's not tr u e . I don 't know anybody who it is tru e fo r. If I cou ld fin d so m eb o d y th at I cou ld ju st w r ite a s c r ip t fo r and then hand it to th e m , the tem p ta tio n w ould be g r e a t. But none of the p eop le I have e v e r w ork ed for h ave e v e r done anything n ea r that and the r e a son is that th ey know what th ey b e lie v e . They know it. What th ey b e l ie v e m ay not be w hat the p r a c titio n e r s w ant o r w hat the sp e e c h w r ite r I I w a n ts, but th ey know w hat th ey w ant, so th e r e fo r e the id e a of so m e guy c o m in g in and w ritin g so m eth in g w hich th ey do not b e lie v e in is i i in c r e d ib le to m e. j C u rtiB : A n oth er o b je c tio n that so m e have v o ice d c o n c e r n s what i the P r e s id e n t sa y s ; that b e c a u se of the in v o lv e m e n t of s p e e c h w r ite r s , so m eh o w what h e sa y s i s not r e a lly h is . G avin : W ell, a g a in , if it w as a p r a c tic e of the P r e s id e n t o r any o th er p e r so n fo r w hom I've w orked to e v e r g iv e v e r b a tim , w o r d -fo r - w ord , so m e th in g that I gave th em , I think th a t w ould be an e x c e lle n t 263 c r it ic is m , but th e fa c t o f the m a tter is th at it is not tru e and what c o m e s out in any sp e e c h by any of the p eop le we are ta lk in g about is u ltim a te ly th e ir stu ff. Now that d o e sn 't n e c e s s a r ily m ea n that so m e of th e w ords o r the p a ragrap h s w e re w r itte n d ir e c tly by h im --a lth o u g h j ' I p erh ap s m o r e often than not m o st o f th em w e r e through the e d itin g i p r o c e s s - - b u t what it d o e s m ean is that the e s s e n c e of the thought is i ! so m e th in g w ith w h ich he e ith e r (a) c o m p le te ly a g r e e s , o r (b) h a s a l read y g iv en to the w r ite r . He s a y s , "Now lo o k , w hat I want is th is , t h is , th is , and th is , so don 't go b ack that w ay." You s e e the old a r g u m en t th at th e se s p e e c h w r ite r s a r e rob ots who a r e au tom aton s is o b v io u sly not tru e. C u r tis : Do you think m o st o f the p eo p le in the U n ited S ta tes Iknow the P r e s id e n t h a s sp e e c h w r ite r s ? I i G avin : I think c e r ta in ly s in c e the K ennedy a d m in istr a tio n th is |is tru e. I think the en o rm o u s am ount of p u b licity w h ich th ey both sou ght and g e n e r a te d m ad e s p e e c h w r ite r s p r e tty fa m o u s. I th in k , how- I I ;ev e r, that it h a s b een a v e r y , v e r y low p r o file kind of job w ith th e c u r ren t P r e s id e n t. But the g e n e r a l public a c c e p ta n c e of s p e e c h w r ite r s a s a le g itim a te and n e c e s s a r y p art of any p o litic ia n 's c a m p is u n q u estio n a b le . C u r tis : Do you think it a ffe c ts lis te n e r p e r c e p tio n fo r the pub lic to know that th e P r e s id e n t, in m any c a s e s , d id n't fo r m a lly w rite what h e is sa y in g ? 264 G avin: Not at a ll. I've n e v e r h ea rd that e x p r e s s e d and I've n e v e r s e e n that in w r itin g . C u r tis : Do you think the w ord " g h o stw riter" h a s a p e jo ra tiv e rin g to it ? G avin : A s a m a tte r of fa c t, 1 think that it is not on ly p e jo r a tiv e but it is in a c c u r a te . 1 don 't think anybody e v en sa y s it a n y m o re. It i I ju s t is n 't a te r m th at you u se for a sp e e c h w r ite r and I think it 's a j good th in g. A " sp e e c h w r ite r " is w hat the guy i s , not a "ghost" and ! i th ere is a d e fin ite d iffe r e n c e . C u rtis: Do you think the u se of s p e e c h w r ite r s e n c o u r a g e s c o n s e r v a t is m in the sp e e c h in the s e n s e that if th e p o litic ia n w e re to w rite it, he m ig h t w r ite it m o r e fo r c e fu lly ? When the s p e e c h w r ite r w r ite s it ihe k n ow s that if the r e a c tio n is w rong o r if it is n 't sa id ju s t the righ t I w ay that th e p o litic ia n is g oin g to co m e down h ard on h im , th e r e fo r e , l Ihe is a little m o r e c o n s e r v a tiv e in w hat he w r ite s . G a v in : T he r e a l w orld d o e sn 't o p e r a te th at w ay. In o th er l !w o r d s , th e r e is n 't a tim e w hen th e sp e e c h w r ite r w ill have a fix e d point of v ie w tow ard the stu ff h e 's w r itin g . It w ill a lw a y s vary fro m tim e Id i i tim e . V ery o ften th e stu ff w e hand in is goin g to be r e a lly rough stu ff and th e p e r so n who is g oin g to u s e it w ill ton e it dow n. O ther t im e s , i Ithe stu ff w ill go in a s n e a t a s anything and the p e r so n w h o 's goin g to i {use it w ill g iv e it a little m u s c le fr o m h is ow n p oin t of v ie w . H ere 1 i (again , th e p oin t th at m o s t p e o p le d on 't r e a liz e i s that th e end r e s u lt of 265 l l th is p r o c e s s is fo r the sp e e c h w r ite r to give h is m an the b e st to o ls that j i I he can fo r h im to do w h atever job he w ants to do. Now b efore he d oes w h atever he w ants to d o, you m ay argue with h im and sa y , "W ell, look you should do so m eth in g lik e that." But once the d e c isio n is m ade and | y o u 're w ith him and not out of id e o lo g ic a l bounds, you support h im in l i your w ritin g . Now w h at's going to happen is that in ev ita b ly th e re is j going to be d isa g r e e m e n t. You are going to sa y , "H ell, why d id n't he { u se m y stu ff? Why did he u se h is own or another p e r s o n 's ? " W ell, I i th at's the nature of the gam e and th a t's what h ap p en s, but the im p o r tant thing is that you don't kid y o u r se lf in public o r in sp eech w ritin g a s to the fa ct that you are the im portant one and he is the guy who should be u sin g your stuff. P e r so n a lly , 1 fe e l that w ay, but p r o fe s sio n a lly it ju st d o e sn 't w ork that way. He is the guy who h as to go out I and sp eak the w o rd s. H is judgm ent, h is in stin c t o f what the au d ien ce jfeels are what you have to tr u st. The a n sw er to the w hole thing i s , I don't know of a sp e e c h w r ite r who has been able to "w rite" anything. ! The "w riting" of som eth in g is a m in or a rt form in sp eech w ritin g be - icause the kind of thing they have to do on the stu m p is to m ake ju d g m en ts sim p ly b e c a u se th e ir s is the rew ard o r the punishm ent; th ey 're the o n es who g e t it in the end, not the sp e e c h w r ite r . C u rtis: Do you think, h y p o th e tic a lly , that t h e r e is e v e r a point jwhen the s p e e c h w r ite r 's con trib u tion s b eco m e u n eth ica l? F or e x a m - r p ie , when the sp e e c h w r ite r w r ite s the w hole thing from sta r t to fin ish , giv es it to the p olitician and he d e liv e r s it? G avin : T h at's not n e c e s s a r ily u n eth ica l. It m ay be a m a tte r of b ein g the p o litic ia n 's c h o ic e . If, o v e r a p e r io d of tim e , a p o litic a l f i g ure u sed not on ly the w ord s but th e th o u g h ts, the p a tte r n s and e v e r y thing e ls e a sp e e c h w r ite r o ffe r e d w h ich w e r e a g a in st h is ow n m o r a l or p o litic a l p r in c ip le s , 1 w ould think the s p e e c h , the p re p a r a tio n p r o c e s s , the sp e e c h w r ite r and the p o litic ia n w e r e u n e th ic a l and im m o r a l. But it ! w ouldn't n e c e s s a r ily be c o m p le te ly the s p e e c h w r ite r 's im m o r a lity , it j w ould be the p o litic ia n 's a s w e ll. j C u r tis : So it h in g es m o r e on th e id e o lo g y than th e am ount of j in fo rm a tio n ta k en ? G avin: N ot n e c e s s a r ily . G ive m e an e x a m p le of what a d i s se n tin g r h e to r ic a l c r it ic w ould c ite a s a n o n -id e o lo g ic a l, u n eth ica l sp e e c h w r itin g a c t. ! C u rtis: The e x a m p le is c ite d o f the p o litic ia n who g o e s up to ipodium , lo o k s at h is sp e e c h fo r the f i r s t tim e , t e l l s the op en in g sto r y j ! and lau gh s s o hard at it b e c a u se it is the f ir s t tim e he h a s h e a r d it that ;his g la s s e s fa ll o ff, b r e a k , and he c a n 't fin is h rea d in g h is s p e e c h . G avin : Who iB th is guy ? 1 w ant to fin d h im b e c a u se if I cou ld I think I cou ld m ak e a gold m in e out o f h im . I t ’s g r e a t. C u rtis: Is it u n e th ic a l? G avin: H e ll, y e s . I t ’s fa n ta stic and it 's u n e th ic a l, but I ju s t don 't think that it h ap p en s in r e a l lif e . It h ap p en s m ayb e in fic tio n . 267 The only thing you can speak from is your own e x p e r ie n c e and it has | n e v e r happened to m e and 1 don't know anyone to whom th is has h ap pened. C u rtis: Would it e v e r be a c a d e m ic a lly ju stifia b le to o ffer a c o u r se in sp ee ch w r itin g ? G avin: W ell, th a t's lik e one of th e se q u estio n s about op p osin g c o u r s e s in sh o rt sto r y w ritin g. A c a d e m ic a lly , 1 think so m ew h ere j along the lin e the w hole p r o c e s s should be exp lain ed as it e x is ts and | I not as it e x is ts in fic tio n w r ite r s ' m in d s. 1 don't think a c o u r se as i su ch would be p o ssib le b eca u se of the dozen or so guys 1 know who w r ite fo r a liv in g in W ash in gton --n on e of them sta rted out as a kid by sa y in g , "I think I want to be a sp e e c h w r ite r and I'll go even tu ally w ork I on the P r e sid e n t's staff." F o r e x a m p le, B ill S a tir e 's a public r ela tio n s m an , P at B uchanan's a c o n se r v a tiv e jo u r n a list, Ray P r ic e was an e d ito r ia l w riter for the old H erald T rib un e, I w as a high sch ool i sch o o l te a c h e r , and L ee H uebner w as the co -fo u n d er and head of the Ripon S o ciety at H arvard. You can 't get a m o re d iv e r s e group of d if f e r e n t kinds of a n g le s, and y e t we a ll wound up a s sp e e c h w r ite r s. I think a lm o st in the n atu re of the e x e r c is e , sp e e c h w r ite r s are going to have to be p eop le who lik e to w r ite and lik e p o litic s , too, but have n e v e r thought of th e m s e lv e s a s sp e e c h w r ite r s b efo re th ey sta rted | w ritin g s p e e c h e s . M aybe so m e people h ave, though, b eca u se as you sa y , it's b eco m in g m o re and m o re known. ; 268 | C u rtis: What atten tion should r h e to r ic a l c r itic s give to the in flu en ce of sp e e c h w r ite r s in the a d d r e ss? G avin: G ive m e an ex a m p le. C u rtis: O kay, when you talk about the inaugural a d d re ss that the P r e sid e n t w ill g iv e th is com in g January [1 9 7 3 ], when one r h e to r i c a lly a n a ly se s that sp ee ch , would he have to se a r c h out Ray P r ic e 's con trib u tion to it, John A n d rew s, e tc .? G avin: It would be v ery in te r e stin g if you could find out. C u rtis: Do you think it would a ffe c t the a ccu ra cy of the r h e to r ij c a l c r itic is m if the c r itic d id n 't? Would it be n e g lec tin g a r h e to r ica l r e sp o n sib ility not to do that? l G avin: I don't know. One thing I think you have n oticed throughout th is p a rticu la r co n v ersa tio n : I don't th in k --sp e a k in g about |e th ic s --th a t it is e th ic a l to speak of sp e c ific sp e e c h e s or other thin gs I I you have done as a sp e e c h w r ite r . It's not d is a str o u s. To your friend* in the o ffic e or som eth in g lik e that, but 1 ju st don't s e e it, b eca u se I again it g e ts back to the natu re of what you want. This guy who said Ihe could w rite for M cG overn or N ix o n --w h o e v er he happens to b e - - if he can do that, h e 's an ey e c a t. M ost of the guys 1 know or have read about a r e guys who are in th e re w ritin g for the guy b eca u se they b e lie v e in h im or som eth in g lik e that. I don't think it's righ t to co m e out and sa y , "H ey, m y n a m e's so and s o , 1 con trib u ted to X sp eech ." 1 ju s t don't think you should do that. I r e a lly don't, so th e r e fo r e I think it w ould be p retty d iffic u lt for you to find out the s o u r c e s of a lo t of the : I stu ff. C u r tis : T h at's going to be an in te r e stin g on e for m e to fa c e . H ave I m is s e d anything about what you did w h ile you w e re w ritin g for I I the P r e s id e n t that you think I need to g iv e so m e atten tion to , o r h ave I ■ I i ! p retty w ell c o v e r e d it? j i G avin: Y eah, 1 think so . I think th at you h ave the id ea that th e re are f ir s t of a ll d iffe r e n t le v e ls to the g am e. Why d o n ’t you find a n am e fo r the thin g, w h a tev er it is we d o , b e c a u se any sp e e c h w r ite r is going to do m o re than ju st w rite s p e e c h e s . He w ill probab ly be an id e a m an too and h e 'll p robab ly be - -d ep en d in g upon the n atu re of the o r g a n iza tio n o r h is r e la tio n sh ip to the m a n --w h ic h is an oth er thing you sh ould in v e s tig a te . X don't know quite how you w ould do it, but J that is the " p erson al" p art of the eq u ation . F or e x a m p le , P a t B uchanan is not only a w r ite r -- th e kind of guy who h e lp s the P r e s id e n t do su m m a ry and a ll that kind of stu ff--b u t he w ent w ith th e P r e s id e n t in 19&6 w hen he sta r te d ca m p a ig n in g . He h a s a unique r e la tio n sh ip to the P r e s id e n t and, th e r e fo r e , the kinds of th in gs P a t w ould say w ould be c o m p le te ly d iffe r e n t fro m m y ow n and fo r a good r e a so n . I know the P r e sid e n t; the P r e s id e n t know s m e and h as ta lk ed to m e , but i th a t's it. And th a t's a s it sh ou ld b e. The kind of r e la tio n sh ip 1 had w ith h im w as not on the le v e l of p e r so n a l fr ie n d sh ip , but a v e r y , v ery 1 I im p ortan t p a rt of a w r ite r 's a b ility to p rod u ce is h is r e la tio n sh ip w ith 270 the m an for w hom he is w ork in g. W ith a lm o s t any p r e s id e n tia l w r ite r , that d e g r e e of p e r so n a l co n ta ct is goin g to be d iffic u lt to a c h ie v e . F o r j v a r io u s o r g a n iz a tio n a l and te c h n ic a l p u r p o se s, th o se who m ad e the d e c is io n at the W hite H ouse m ade it in su ch a w ay that m o st of the I t w r ite r s w ent through Jim K eogh. It is c o n c e iv a b le to m e that it could w ork an oth er w ay. F o r in s ta n c e , a P r e s id e n t's tim e w ould not n e c e s - i s a r ily be tak en up if he w ent h e a d -o n -h e a d w ith a g iv en w r ite r on a g iv en thing. The P r e s id e n t d o e s do that. A t le a s t , I know he u sed to j i do it. He didn't do it w ith m e nor did he do it w ith m any of the p eop le | who w ork ed at w hat I c a ll m y le v e l on the sta ff. G iven a ll the th in gs th at he w ants u s to do o v e r th e r e , th a t's a p e r fe c tly le g itim a te way to o p e r a te . My own fe e lin g , though, is th at it is a fa r b e tte r th in g --a n d th is is a p retty good e x a m p le --to go h e a d -o n -h e a d w hen you a r e doing ia sp e e c h fo r som eb od y; w r itin g it out and argu in g it ou t. The P r e s i- d ent o f th e U nited S ta te s is an in c r e d ib ly b u sy m a n , beyond w hat a n y one can im a g in e . E v en fo r a m an a s w e ll o r g a n iz e d a s is th e P r e s i d en t, he s i m p l y d o e sn 't h ave the tim e to do h is own w r itin g . I think w hen it i g e ts down the im p o rta n t a d d r e s s e s lik e V ietn a m o r C am b odia that he fin d s the tim e . But you c a n 't ta lk about sp e e c h w r itin g in q u an tifiab le b lo c k s. A p r o c la m a tio n on X w eek ju st d o e sn 't b egin to c o m p a r e w ith the im p o r ta n c e of a m a jo r p o licy a d d r e s s . T hroughout ou r c o n v e r s a tio n w e h ave ta lk ed about how we a s s p e e c h w r ite r s a r e in c r e d ib ly s e n s i t i v e and it g e ts w o r se a s 1 g e t o ld e r . F r a n k ly , I hope I n e v e r lo s e it. . . ... 271 I think m o st sp e e c h w r ite r s are a little fla k ey . It's part of the b u sin e ss : i and I think part o f the fla k in e ss is w asted . "My stuff is n 't being used" and other s im ila r thoughts by sp e e c h w r ite r s o c c u r . But th ere is another part of m y brain that o p e r a te s and sa y s to m e , "Stop being so dam n s illy . Things w ill w ork out a ll righ t." H ow ever, if y o u 'r e not s e n s itiv e , if y o u 're ju st that guy who can w ork in the govern m en t with-i ; j out fe e lin g , you should get out of the b u sin e ss . On the o th er hand, if y o u 're o v e r ly se n sitiv e ; if each verb , ea ch noun, ea ch a d jectiv e is a j p recio u s thing to you and if anyone to u ch es it your h ea rt b r e a k s,y o u | should g et out of the b u sin e ss too. P o litic s ain 't beanbag. It's a tough b u sin e ss and th ere are tough d e c is io n s to be m ad e. So long as the u ltim a te r h e to r ic a l d e c is io n s a r e m ade by the guy out of w h ose m outh the w ords c o m e , the w hole p r o c e s s is le g itim a te and a b so lu tely n e c e s - sa r y . Any tim e that th is situ a tio n is r e v e r se d you 've got an a b so lu tely I d an gerou s thing going. But I don't know of a sin g le in sta n ce I've e v e r read about or ex p e rien ce d m y s e lf in w hich th is h as e v e r happened. It's a m yth that d e s e r v e s to be put down. John A n drew s C u r tis; How do you c o n c eiv e of your r e s p o n s ib ilitie s a s a sp e e c h w r ite r ? What is the sp eech w ritin g p r o c e s s ? D o es the P r e sid e n t c a ll you on the phone and sa y , "Com e on o v e r . I've got an assign m en t," or does he send you a m em o , e tc .? 272 ! i A ndrew s: W ell, the pattern is seld o m the sa m e tw ice o f how we get our a ssig n m e n ts and ex a ctly how they are c a r r ie d out. 1 would s a y , though, that the in sta n c e s w here the P r e sid e n t g o e s d ir e c tly to the w r ite r , say on the phone, and then the w r ite r is su m m oned into the P r e sid e n t's o ffice and then the w hole thing sta rtin g fro m ground z e r o with the two m en fa ce to face; that d o e sn 't happen v e r y often . It i h as happened to m e a couple of tim e s , but it d o e sn 't happen very m uch b eca u se the sch ed u lin g p r o c e s s is so ela b o ra te around h ere that things don't u su a lly sn eak up on u s. T hose that shape the P r e sid e n t's sc h e d ule and public a p p ea ra n ces and so forth w ill u su a lly give us plenty of advan ce w arning. We know when a sp ee ch is com in g up and Ray P r ic e o r d in a r ily m ak es the a ssig n m e n t to the w riter as to w hich one w ill be handling it. We handle thin gs p retty m uch one m an to an a ssig n m en t. 'T here is n 't a lo t of co lla b o ra tio n . P r ic e e d its what the w riter d o e s, i but as far as team in g up on th in g s, for in sta n c e , lik e R osen m an and h is c o lle a g u e s did fo r FD R , th ere ju st is n ’t very m uch of that. C u r tis: How do you divide up what you d o? Is one w r ite r a s p e c ia lis t in fo re ig n p olicy and another in d o m e stic a ffa ir s , etc.? A ndrew s: No. T here is n 't v e ry m uch sp e c ia liz a tio n . F ro m tim e to tim e th in gs fa ll into a p attern w h ere the guy who w orked on ;"health ca re" la s t w ill w ork on it th is tim e around and the m ix th ere jnot only r e la te s to sp e e c h e s but if you have done a le g is la tiv e m e s s a g e ( Ion the topic you are probably the one who can m o st qu ick ly get in shape to be able to handle the su b ject m a tter and do a sp ee ch on the to p ic. C u r tis: You know, that r a is e s an in te r e stin g point that I've o ften w ondered about: That i s , d o es the P r e sid e n t g e n e r a lly have an o c c a sio n to sp eak and then find a p u rp o se, or d o es he have a d e s ir e to | i p ersu ad e and then go out and find an o c c a sio n ? A ndrew s: W ell, that again v a r ie s . It happens both w ays; the j ch ick en and the egg co m e in any o r d e r . S o m e tim e s the forum n atu - j i r a lly d ic ta te s the top ic and the su b ject m a tte r and so you r e a lly ca n 't I t sa y "A happens and then B h ap p en s." F o r in sta n c e , I w orked on the 1 I P r e sid e n t's sp e e c h when he a d d r e sse d the N ational C atholic E ducation A sso c ia tio n C on ven tion at P h ila d elp h ia la s t A p ril [1 9 7 2 ], in w hich he l i u sed th is o c c a sio n to f ir s t , plug h is busing p r o p o sa ls w hich he r e c en tly se n t to C o n g r e ss , and se co n d , to talk about aid to n on -pu blic I s c h o o ls . W ell, it w as a n atu ral foru m to do both of th o se things and |both w ere fro n t-b u rn er to p ic s at the tim e and s o , I think they in vited i h im . T h ere have been o c c a sio n s w h ere we have so lic ite d an in vitation i to be able to u se a foru m to a d d r e ss a c e r ta in to p ic , but m o st of the i l tim e the P r e s id e n t h a s so m any m o re in v ita tio n s than he can a ccep t that it is a sim p le m a tter to go into the file fo r the sch ed u lin g people land find an in v ita tio n that th ey [the W hite H o u se] have g iv en a c o n d i- | tio n a l "turn down" to and r e v iv e it a s a liv e opportunity fo r him to go Ispeak. i I j ^ __ 2 7 4 C u r tis : L et m e g e t a little m o r e s p e c ific about th is s p e e c h - w r itin g p r o c e s s it s e lf . When you a r e w ritin g a sp e e c h fo r the P r e s i d en t, do you d raft a w h ole page at a tim e and th en go back and r e -r e a d and r e str u c tu r e it, or do you w r ite a se n te n c e at a tim e and then look at th e se n te n c e and ch an ge a w ord or tw o and think about it ? j A n d r e w s: W ell, the way of w ritin g I have e v o lv e d hap pens to bej w h ere the f ir s t tim e down on paper is p r e tty m u ch the way it en d s up b e c a u se I w ork th in g s out p retty m uch in m y head q u ite a bit b e fo re 1 i i r e a lly s ta r t c o m m ittin g th em to p ap er. Of c o u r s e , the y e llo w le g a l 1 pad is on e of the sta tu s sy m b o ls in th is a d m in istr a tio n b e c a u se the P r e s id e n t u s e s it so m u ch . But I s it around and ju s t s o r t of sc r ib b le n o te s , not n e c e s s a r ily an o u tlin e , ju s t a lo t of d isc o n n e c te d thou ghts j that I know I w ill w ant to c o v e r and p oin ts to rem in d m y s e lf. When I f e e l 1 h ave ex h a u sted that p r o c e s s , 1 ju s t s it dow n, m o r e o ften than not w ithout a fo r m a l o u tlin e , and try to le t the thing o r g a n ic a lly flo w on p a p er. The s e n te n c e s and p a ra g ra p h s and th e o v e r a ll o r g a n iz a tio n of i w h a tev e r 1 am w orking on u su a lly sh ap e th e m s e lv e s in m y m ind w h ere !1 don 't h a v e to do m a s s iv e r e w r itin g . Of c o u r s e , th e P r e s id e n t f o r c e s you to r e w r ite th in g s s o m e tim e s b e c a u se th e y a r e not the w ay he w ants th e m , but I h ave had lo ts o f e x p e r ie n c e s of fe e lin g that it w as p retty rig h t th e w ay 1 put it dow n th e f ir s t tim e and h avin g m y c lie n t f e e l the | sa m e w ay. I j C u r tis: You r a is e d an oth er in te r e s tin g point about the y e llo w le g a l pad. Would you sa y that th a t's c h a r a c te r is tic a lly tr u e of the ^ i P r e s id e n t, o r is it a m is im p r e s s io n that the g e n e r a l public h a s ? Is it a d is to r tio n or d o e s h is p e r so n a l sp e e c h w r itin g r e a lly happen that way? A n d rew s: T h at's the way he r e a lly d o e s it. The m o r e im p o r - j tant h e c o n s id e r s a sp e e c h to b e , the m o r e he w ork s on it h im s e lf and ithe l e s s in v o lv e m e n t the w r ite r s h a v e. To the point w h ere th is su m - ! ! i m e r [1972] on the a c c e p ta n c e sp e e c h w e su b m itted p a ck a g es and p a ck a g e s o f m a te r ia l and we n e v e r got any feed b a ck of how he lik ed it. i E v e ry now and then w e w ould get a r e q u e st to d e v e lo p so m e thou ghts on] i a to p ic that we hadn't c o v e r e d , but w hen th e a c ce p ta n c e sp e e c h w as d e liv e r e d that w as the f ir s t that any of u b knew e x a c tly w hat it w as going to sa y . We didn't s e e any d r a fts a s he w ent a lo n g , although B ob H ald em an rep o rted that th e se d ra fts w e r e takin g sh a p e. But e v en then jthe on ly p e r so n that had se e n the d r a fts , o th er than the P r e s id e n t, w as j R o se W ood s, h is s e c r e ta r y , and we cou ld r e c o g n iz e little chunks and b its of id e a s that w e had su b m itted . The o r g a n iz a tio n of the th in g , the w ording o f it, the w r itin g o f it w as e n tir e ly h is ow n p r o je c t and it w ill lik e ly be the v e ry sa m e w ay fo r the in a u g u ra l [Jan u ary 1973] and when he d o e s the m ajor a d d r e s s e s on V ietn am on te le v is io n . They have b een v e r y m uch h is ow n p r o d u ctio n s, too. I w as in v o lv ed w ith a cou p le of th o se la s t A p ril and M ay [1972] and th e s e w ere in s ta n c e s w h ere I w a s e s s e n t ia lly su m m on ed to h is o ffic e and he s a id , "O kay, h e r e i s w hat we a r e goin g to be doin g. We a r e goin g on TV to m o r r o w TFV i i nigh t to ta lk about V ietn am and th e r e is an o u tlin e ." He c a lls it an o u tlin e , but it tu rn s out to be a c o m p le te te x t, "being typed up by m y s e c r e ta r y w h ich w ill be g iv en to you and 1 want you to fle s h it out and g et it into sh a p e." He f e e ls that I know h is s ty le , so he s a y s , "put it i in m y s ty le ." W ell, w hen I get th e th in g , it tu rn s out to be p r a c tic a lly ; I a fu ll-b lo w n d ra ft a lre a d y and 1 ju st fid d le around w ith th e organ ization ! i | a little b it and try and tig h ten it up and c le a n it up w h ere it lo o k s lik e i^ n e ed s it and m o r e o ften than n ot, he puts it back the way it w as in the I i f ir s t p la c e a fte r he g e ts m y r e w r ite and it g o e s that w ay. But he d o e s r e ly v e ry h e a v ily on th is p r o c e s s of m akin g o u tlin e s . He d ic ta te s; s o m e tim e s he w r ite s in longh and , but he is h is own sp e e c h w r ite r probab ly m o re than anybody s in c e W ilson h as b een . C u r tis : Do you e v e r read out loud what you w r ite ? A n d r e w s: I a lm o st a lw a y s try to. And th is w as on e of the j |th in g s that 1 had to le a r n . I've b een in th is jo b a lm o s t tw o y e a r s and I iw hen I f ir s t c a m e o v e r h e r e , 1 w as not that a c c u sto m e d to th in k in g in i j I te r m s of w r itin g fo r th e e a r . My s e n te n c e s would be too lo n g , m y I |p a ra g ra p h s w ould be too lo n g , m y c o n str u c tio n s w ould s o m e tim e s be i in v o lu ted , and so 1 h a v e been fo r c e d to t e s t it out loud to m ak e su re i t ’s going to sound a ll rig h t and it 's goin g to be c le a r and e a sy for the i lis te n e r to fo llo w . I had a co u p le of e x p e r ie n c e s when I hadn't r e a lly i _____________________________________ idone that and p erh a p s th e P r e s id e n t had n't a d d r e ss e d th e thing a s in - ! [te n se ly a s h e sh ou ld h ave e ith e r . H e's ended up d e liv e r in g it and I've 27 7 fe lt that It d id n 't co m e a c r o s s the w ay I w anted it to and it's r e a lly quite an a g o n izin g e x p e r ie n c e w hen he stu m b les o v e r so m e th in g o r he r ea d s so m e th in g in the way th at 1 didn't think it sh ould sound. But I ca n 't fau lt h im for read in g it that way b e c a u se it w as m y fa u lt fo r not i m ak in g it sound the way it ought to. ! C u r tis : W ould you g iv e m e so m e in d ica tio n of you r background? W here did you co m e fro m b e fo r e you sta r te d w ritin g for the P r e sid e n t? A n d r e w s: I graduated fr o m P r in c ip ia C o lle g e in I llin o is in 196£ and sp en t th r e e y e a r s in the N avy a s a su b m a rin e o ffic e r . Out of the Navy 1, by a str o k e of good fo rtu n e, ended up a s an e x e c u tiv e a s s is ta n t to R on Z ie g le r , the P r e s s S e c r e ta r y o v e r h e r e , and I did that fo r a y e a r during w h ich tim e I did a little w ritin g fo r h im w h ich c a m e to R ay P r ic e 's atten tio n . I got acq u ain ted w ith R ay and at the end of 1970 jhe w as e le v a te d to b eco m e h ead of the W riting and R e s e a r c h D ep art* m en t in th e W hite H o u se. A t that tim e , he kind of sh ook up the sta ff a lit tle b it and a sk ed m e if I w ould lik e to c o m e o v e r . He w as look in g ifor so m e young new guys to c o m e in (that w as at the begin n in g of '71 that I did th at). I had had no fo r m a l tra in in g in jo u r n a lism or w r itin g a s su ch , althou gh I have a lw a y s en jo y ed w ritin g and did a g r e a t d e a l of it in high sc h o o l and c o lle g e . C u r tis : What w as you r u n d ergrad u ate m a jo r ? A n d r e w s: P o litic a l s c ie n c e and b u s in e s s a d m in istr a tio n . C u rtis: H ave you had any fo r m a l tra in in g in s p e e c h ? : ........' ' " TTZ~ A n d rew s: N o. I'd w r itte n a lo t of s p e e c h e s and ta lk s fo r m y s e lf , but I'd n e v e r w r itte n anything fo r anyon e e ls e b e fo re I did a few th in gs for Z ie g le r w hen I w ork ed fo r h im . B ut I enjoy public sp eak in g and ta lk in g on m y fe e t, d eb a te, th is kind of th in g . I didn't h ave any I / fo r m a l d eb ate tra in in g e ith e r , but I fe lt c o m fo r ta b le in it and it 's ju s t , so m eth in g that I g r a v ita te d in to . I think th at the b e s t sin g le p r e p a r a - j tion I had to s ta r t w ritin g fo r the P r e s id e n t w a s w orking fo r a y e a r in * the P r e s s O ffice w h ich , am ong its o th er fu n c tio n s, is that it is the poin t of c o lle c tio n and d is s e m in a tio n fo r e v e r y w ord that the P r e s id e n t sp ea k s in p u b lic. The ste n o g r a p h ic p eo p le who p rod u ce the tr a n sc r ip ts of e v e r y th in g h e sa y s p u b licly w ork u n d er the P r e s s S e c r e ta r y and w e 'r e in ch a r g e of the a ctu a l p h y sic a l p rin tin g o p e r a tio n and d is tr ib u t-l ing to the p r e s s . One o f m y jo b s w ith Ron [Z e ig le r ] w as to p r o o fre a d a ll th e s e tr a n s c r ip ts . So for a so lid y e a r I h ea rd the P r e s id e n t sp eak to the public v e r y fre q u en tly . I w as in and o u t of h is o ffic e w ith p r e s s > p o o ls who w ould go into photograph so m e kind of an ev en t. I d id n't e v e r r e a lly m e e t h im fo r that f ir s t y e a r , but I did get a f e e l of w hat he is lik e in a s m a ll grou p and how he in te r a c ts in m e e tin g p eo p le. I fe lt I had so m e s e n s e o f w hat ty p e o f m an he i s , plu s I had b een a b so rb in g m o r e o r l e s s by o s m o s is h is sp ea k in g s ty le w ithou t r e a lly know ing it. ; By the tim e I c a m e o v e r h e r e and sta r te d to w r ite , I found that I d id n 't \ a lw a y s think th at it w a s p a r tic u la r ly a p p ro p ria te to w r ite in a v ery [ c o llo q u ia l "N ixonian" w ay a s if h e w e re sp ea k in g "off the cu ff," but I !found I cou ld do it and m ak e it sound lik e so m e th in g th at he w as m aking up a s he w as goin g a lo n g , ra th er than what h e w as rea d in g fr o m the te x t. I d on 't u su a lly do that b e c a u se 1 don't think th a t's what he w a n ts. He w ants it a litt le m o r e c le a n and o r g a n iz e d and p o lish e d than if it * w as to ta lly e x te m p o r a n e o u s. B ut m y point is that 1 fe lt I had a g r ea t running s ta r t to c o m e into th is job fr o m h avin g had that a p p r e n tic e sh ip in th e P r e s s O ffic e. C u rtis: Is m o st of h is sp ea k in g tr a n s c r ip t or fr o m an o u tlin e ? | i A n d rew s: N o. M o st of h is sp ea k in g is to ta lly "off the cu ff." > i He p rob ab ly sp e a k s l e s s fr o m p r e p a r ed te x ts than any P r e s id e n t fo r j m any y e a r s b ack , to o . We h ave e v o lv e d a fo r m a t to p r e p a r e h im fo r th e se o c c a s io n s to g iv e h im so m e id e a s of w hat he m igh t want to sa y "off the cu ff." We su b m it th r e e o r fo u r p a g e s of w ork c a lle d " su g g e s te d r e m a r k s" w h ich a r e e s s e n t ia lly little in d iv id u a l p a ra g ra p h s o r J lin e s o r a n ecd o ta l m a te r ia l that he cou ld w ea v e into h is o v e r a ll r e m a r k s, but it 's n ot a c o m p le te b e g in n in g -to -e n d te x t in th at s e n s e . T hen th e r e is u su a lly a fa c t s h e e t o f in fo r m a tio n a l m a te r ia l about th e i ;ev en t o r th e group w h ich he m a k e s good u se of. H e m in e s little n u g - 'g e ts of in fo r m a tio n out of th a t, but 95 p e r c e n t of a ll the public s p e a k in g he d o e s is w h ere he w ill a b so rb that m a te r ia l ahead of tim e , la y it I a s id e , and ju s t stan d up th e r e and talk . It's v e r y im p r e s s iv e to the au d ien ce and im p r e s s iv e e v e n to u s , how good h e is at it. When h e d o e s sp ea k fr o m a te x t, h e h a s e v o lv e d w ith R o se W ood s, who h a s b eer i 2 8 0 ! hia s e c r e ta r y for m ore than 20 y e a r s , a so r t of ou tlin e fo rm a t in which . a sp eech te x t is typed up on the page. Then th ey take the ord in ary paragraphs and tr a n sla te them back into m ajor p o in ts, su b p oin ts, and su b -su b p o in ts. The u tility o f th is is that it is v ery e a sy for h im to fo llo w on the page and it e n a b le s him to look up and then find h is p lace again . It a lso en a b les him to d ep art fro m h is tex t and pick it back up i im m ed ia te ly so that the lis te n e r has no idea that he h as dep arted fro m | the te x t, he d o e s n ’t lo s e h is p la ce and th ere is no p rob lem of clu tch in g up and having a d isjo in ted o rg a n iza tio n when the thing is exam in ed la te r on b e c a u se it flo w s v e ry sm o o th ly . When he is w orking fro m a I te x t, the d ep a rtu res in the body of the sp eech are rath er infreq uent. In p a r tic u la r , if he h as w orked on it he w ill have w ritten in , o r had us w rite in , w h atever e x tr a thoughts m igh t o th e rw ise co m e in the fo rm of a d ep artu re or addition to the tex t. He d o e sn 't sk ip o v e r th in gs e ith er . j If they a r e w ritten in th e r e , he w ill probably d e liv e r th em as w ritten . But what he d oes is m ake us w rite the tex t a g r ea t d eal sh o rte r than he r e a lly intend s to g iv e . F o r in sta n c e , he m ak es us w rite to a fifte e n m inu te lim it and u su a lly ta lk s b etw een tw enty and tw e n ty -fiv e m in u tes. T his en a b les him to give so m e w arm -up ; you know , g et the fo r m a litie s out of the way at the beginn in g. U su ally at the end he w on't e x a ctly | end it w ith the p ero ra tio n that w e have w ritten for him but he w ill do {som ething un iqu ely h is own at the end w hich adds th r ee to fiv e m in u tes jon the end o f ea ch p rep ared tex t. 281 C u r tis: Do you think that m o st people in the country know that the P r e sid e n t has sp e e c h w r ite r s ? A n d rew s: Oh, y e s . 1 think that it's to ta lly taken for granted by the g r e a t m a jo rity of the p eop le. C u r tis: And you don't think that th e ir know ing th is a ffec ts th eir p ercep tio n as lis t e n e r s ? I | A n d rew s: N o, I r e a lly don't think it d o e s. I think that th e ir p ercep tio n of th is m an, R ichard N ixon, is as a m an who sp eak s h is m ind. He h as given enough e x a m p les during th e se four y e a r s [1 9 6 8 - i 72] , and during h is w hole tim e in public life to the fa ct that he is not so m eo n e who le ts the sta ff run h im , but, on the c o n tra r y , he is d e fi- I n ite ly the cap tain of the tea m , the cap tain of the sh ip. H e's in ch a rg e. I ju st don't think peop le have m isg iv in g s that R ich ard N ixon is a n y b od y's to o l. A lo t of people m ay ob ject to what he does or what he s a y s , but 1 h ave n e v e r se e n the im p lic a tio n that he is being m anip u lated by so m eo n e e ls e . They ob ject on the grounds that th ey don't lik e what kind of a m an he i s , but th e re ju st d o e sn ’t se e m to be any doubt ‘that th is is the kind of m an he is; not that he is so m e kind of fro n t or a m ou th p iece for som eb od y. C u r tis: Do you e v er find y o u r se lf arguing w ith the P r e sid e n t o v e r any a sp e c t of th e sp eech id e a s , lin e s of p ro o f, ty p e s o f argum en t d ev elo p m en t, th is s o r t of th in g? D o es he e x p e c t that of you ? i | A ndrew s: Y e s, he d o e s. What you w ould want id e a lly in te r m s L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Z X Z - o£ a sta ff r e la tio n sh ip w ith the P r e s id e n t and what you get a r e two d if fe r e n t th in g s. He sa y s he d o e sn 't w ant " y es m en ," but p a r tic u la r ly fo r so m e o n e of ten d er y e a r s lik e m e , it is on e thin g to know th at he d o e sn 't w ant to be " y e ssed " and to know that he d o e sn 't w ant to be told ju s t what you think he w ants to h e a r , but it 's not a lw a y s so e a s y to fo llo w | i through on th a t, p a rtly b e c a u se 1 don 't have a s high a r e g a r d for m y ow n ju d gm en t a s I do for h is , on m o st p o in ts. And s o , 1 think tw ic e ' o r th r e e tim e s b e fo re I p r e s s a poin t of v ie w , although I h a v e done s o . One o f th e th in g s that is m o s t g r a tify in g to m e in w ork in g w ith h im , w h eth er you a r e d is a g r e e in g w ith him a s su ch o r w h eth er you a r e ju st a sk in g h im to buy what you h ave w ritten and not to ta lly s c r a p it and tr y to do it o v e r h im s e lf o r g iv e it to so m e o n e e l s e , i s th at 1 have a lw a y s g otten the fe e lin g that he r e s p e c ts the p eo p le on h is sta ff as p r o fe s s io n a ls . H e p la c e s a m e a s u r e of tr u s t and r e s p o n s ib ility in you {which is not o n ly g r a tify in g , but it e n a b le s you to do a b e tte r job. A lso it g iv e s you a fe e lin g that you have got s o m e sc o p e to e x e r c is e your ^w n ju d gm en t and do w hat you think is b e s t and e x e r c is e y o u r own i |s k ills . W ithout th is fe e lin g , in an a tm o sp h e re o f no c o n fid e n c e , you a r e p r e su m e d in c o m p e te n t u n til you p rove y o u r s e lf c o m p ete n t. Nobody ca n w ork v e ry e ffe c tiv e ly or be at th eir b e st under thoBe c ir c u m s ta n c e s . The P r e s id e n t d o e sn 't g iv e anyone th is fe e lin g b e c a u se 1 thin! i I w ould h ave gotten it fr o m h im if anyone w ould b e c a u se m y ow n fo r m a l q u a lific a tio n s to be one of e ig h t o r ten s p e e c h w r ite r s fo r h im a r e not 283 i j that im p r e s s iv e . But he e s s e n tia lly ju d g es on p e r fo r m a n c e , and 1 find th is aw fu lly u se fu l in d efu sin g young p e o p le ’s , p a r tic u la r ly stu d e n t's, p e r c e p tio n s about the P r e s id e n t that the P r e s id e n t is a n ti-y o u th . On the c o n tr a r y , he h as a v e ry s iz e a b le c o n tin g en t of v ery young p eop le on h is sta ff w hom he s e e s not a s young p e o p le , but ju s t a s m en and w om en who can g et th e job don e. And 1 can go to m y own p e r so n a l e x p e r ie n c e to b ack th is up. C u r tis : A s a s p e e c h w r ite r , do you en g a g e e v e r in o th er s p e e c h -r e la te d a c tiv it ie s lik e h elp in g the P r e s id e n t w ith d e liv e r y or the u s e o f h is v o ic e ? A n d r e w s: N o. ! C u r tis : N othing at all ? A n d r e w s: I n e v e r h ave at a ll. C u r tis : W hy? Is it b e c a u se he h a s n e v e r r e q u e ste d it of yo u ? i A n d r e w s: Y e s. W ell, the opp ortu n ity o r the o c c a s io n has .n e v e r a r is e n and th is is so m eth in g I w ou ld n't d rea m of try in g to ta m p er with: so m e o n e who is so m uch w hat he is . I C u rtis: What you a r e sa y in g is that it ju st is n 't your fu n ctio n ? A n d r e w s: N o. And h e d o e sn 't p r a c tic e s p e e c h e s ou t loud that I know o f. He rea d s th em o v e r v e r y c a r e fu lly and m ay t e s t p a s sa g e s out loud in the p r iv a cy of h is o ffic e o r h is co m p a rtm en t on th e plane w hen w e 'r e on the w ay so m e p la c e . B ut I know h e h a s sa id that h is j g e n e r a l p r e fe r e n c e is not to r e h e a r s e out loud. H e n e v e r w a tc h e s a ta p e o f h im s e lf on te le v is io n o r lis t e n s to e v e n a u d io -ta p e s of h im s e lf. I think he f e e ls that th at m a k e s you too s e lf -c o n s c io u s . He has r e fe r r e d to so m e p e o p le 's p r a c tic e o f try in g out a sp e e c h b efo re a m ir - i ror o r so m e th in g lik e that. He s a y s he w ou ld n't d rea m o f doing that b e c a u se it in d u ces s e lf - c o n s c io u s n e s s . He can s o m e tim e s not be the i i m o st ap p aren tly e a sy o r g r a c io u s in d ivid u al anyw ay, and 1 think he i t know s that and the la s t thing he w ants to do i s try to in tro d u ce anything, that w ou ld m ak e h im s tilte d o r l e s s n a tu ra l in ta lk in g to o th er p e o p le . C u r tis : L,et m e throw at you so m e of the o b je ctio n s m y fe llo w c r it ic s h ave v o ice d about you r w ork. E s s e n t ia lly , what m o st of them o b je ct to about g h o stw r itin g , as th ey c a ll it, is th at it c la im s it j u s t i fic a tio n on the p la tfo rm of b u s y n e s s . The P r e s id e n t i s ju s t too busy to h a v e tim e . W hat's you r r e a c tio n to th a t? Is " b u sy n ess" a le g it i- ; m a te p la tfo rm on w h ich to ju s tify the u se of s p e e c h w r ite r s ? i i A n d r e w s: Y e s, I think it is . The w ord "busy" is kind of a load ed w ord in th is c o n tex t b e c a u se the im p lic a tio n by the p e r so n who u s e s it is that he d arn w e ll sh ou ld n 't be too bu sy to do h is own th in k ing and h is own p rep a ra tio n fo r sp ea k in g to th e A m e r ic a n p eo p le. A h o s tile c r it ic w ould sa y , "What h a s he r e a lly got to do that is m o r e im p o rta n t than that?" The a n sw e r is that su ch a huge volu m e o f w hat the P r e s id e n t s a y s d o e s not b rea k new ground. It e s s e n tia lly r e p r e s e n ts o v e r a gain th in g s, in te r m s of p o lic y and sta tin g h is p o sitio n and p h ilo so p h y , that he h a s a lr e a d y s a id , w r itte n o r p r e se n te d in 285 i w r itin g hu nd reds of t im e s . Y et th e re is a c e r ta in dem and fo r f r e s h n e s s , s t y le , g r a c e , and new w ays of illu s tr a tin g , d e sc r ib in g , d r a m a tiz in g o r putting a c r o s s p oin ts that so m e o n e h a s to exp en d a good d ea l of tim e , e n e r g y , and thought on it. It g e ts back to the b u sy n e ss thin g. B u sy n e ss is n 't r e a lly the rig h t w ord . T h ere a r e 2 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 A m e r i can p eop le; th ey have only one P r e sid e n t; he h as got a w o rld to run; a i p e a c e to keep; a budget of $250 b illio n to a d m in iste r and they d id n't e le c t th is m an to be a co m m o n d r a ftsm a n . T hey did e le c t h im to do the hard thinking on the cu ttin g edge of public p o lic y , w h ich he d o e s. T h is is why he is h is ow n sp e e c h w r ite r w hen he is out on the cu ttin g j i i ed ge of p o lic y at tim e s lik e V ietn am . He d o es an aw fu l lo t, if not a ll, ] I of the d r a ftin g --a t le a s t the str u c tu r in g and th in k in g --b eh in d h is S tate of the U nion m e s s a g e s , h is a c c e p ta n c e s p e e c h e s , h is in a u g u ra l ad - jd r e s s , and o th e r m a jo r a d d r e s s e s . | ! C u r tis : What p e r c e n ta g e w ould you s a y ? A n d r e w s: I would sa y that he d o e s 75 p e r c e n t of the w ork on the m o st im p o rta n t 2 p e r c e n t o f a ll h is public u tte r a n c e s. C u rtis: .Let m e s e e if th is is a fa ir w ay of putting it then: a s the im p o rta n ce of the o c c a s io n o r the a d d r e ss in c r e a s e s , h is p e r so n a l in v o lv e m e n t a ls o in c r e a s e s ? A n d rew s: Y e s , d e fin ite ly . In d ir e c t p ro p o rtio n . ! i ! C u rtis: S om e c r it ic s h ave sta te d that b e c a u se of the a p e e c h - I ------------ i i w ritin g p r o c e s s , so m eh o w th e g e n e r a l pu blic m ay g et fro m g h o s t- 286 w r itte n s p e e c h e s a f a ls e im p r e s s io n of the P r e sid e n t; that som eh ow w hat he s a y s is not r e a lly h is . A n d r e w s: W ell, th is g o e s back to h is ow n in v o lv em e n t. He " N ix o n izes" ev er y th in g ; ev en the o n e s that a r e not te r r ib ly im p o rta n t, to the point w h ere he w ould have b een in v o lv ed w ith th em fr o m the ground up. He d o e s go o v e r the draft; he B ees the d ra ft w e ll in a d vance of any sp e e c h that he d e liv e r s and to the e x te n t that he d o e sn 't change it , it 's on ly b e c a u se h is w r ite r s have le a r n e d to p r e s e n t it in a "N ixonian" w ay of sp ea k in g and o r g a n iz a tio n to w h ere he is s a tis fie d that it is fa ir ly w e ll the w ay he w ould have done it h im s e lf. But he r e m a in s the stan d ard ; he r e m a in s the a rb ito r of th e q u a lity and the fit n e s s of e v e r y th in g th at he sa y s and th e r e a r e ju s t no grou n d s w h a t e v e r to think th at he is an yb od y's m o u th p iec e . C u r tis : S om e c r it ic s have o b je cte d to g h o stw r itin g on the ground s that th e u se of sp e e c h w r ite r s p ro d u ces c o n s e r v a tis m , that the P r e s id e n t lo s e s c o n tr o l of h is id e a s and th e ir d e v e lo p m en t to s p e e c h w r ite r s w h o, b e c a u se th ey f e e l m o r e r e sp o n s ib le fo r havin g w r itte n i !the s p e e c h , w a te r it down; m ak e it m o r e c o n s e r v a tiv e w ith le s s punch. Is th is a valid c r it ic is m ? A n d r e w s: It is in v a lid a ted by the fa ct th at th e P r e s id e n t's p e r so n a l in v o lv e m e n t in c r e a s e s in d ir e c t p ro p o rtio n to th e im p o rta n ce of the o c c a s io n o r the u tte r a n c e . A n oth er c r ite r io n o f im p o r ta n c e is the d e g r e e of new ground b ro k en . W henever new ground is b eing b ro k en , 287 i | the P r e s id e n t a n d /o r h is to p -m o s t a d v is o r s on the le v e l of K is s in g e r , E h rlic h m a n , o r th e C a b in e t-le v e l o f f ic e r s , is in v o lv ed in the su b sta n tiv e p re p a r a tio n of the sp e e c h o r m e s s a g e to C o n g r e s s . Who a r e the s p e e c h w r it e r s , th en , e n te r s in p h en o m en a lly . If I w a s a sk ed to be the foun tain head of th e su b sta n tiv e co n ten t of so m e tr e m e n d o u sly im portant | m e s s a g e on d o m e stic p o lic y , or V ietn a m , then it m ay have so m e b ea rin g . But that ju st n e v e r h ap p en s. C u r tis : O ften the a ssu m p tio n is m ade that a good sp e a k e r is lik e ly to be a good sta te sm a n and that a bad sp e a k e r is u n lik ely to be a good p o litic ia n . I don 't know that th is is n e c e s s a r ily tr u e , but do you think it w ould be b e tter fo r our s o c ie ty if we d isc o u r a g e d the u se of s p e e c h w r ite r s and in ste a d in s is te d that our p o litic a l le a d e r s sp ea k out ^ co u ra g eo u sly , r e a liz in g that so m e n a tu ra lly w ould c o m e a c r o s s b etter ithan o th e r s ? A n d r e w s: W ell, I don 't think that a sp e e c h w r ite r ca n m ak e a s ilk p u rse ou t o f a so w 's e a r anyw ay. A m an c o m e s a c r o s s . He shown i ihis tru e c o lo r s and the A m e r ic a n p e o p le a r e sm a r t enough to s e e a i I m an fo r what he is no m a tte r how m any c le v e r p eop le th e r e a r e putting I w ord s in h is m outh o r m ak in g h im up fo r TV o r w h a te v e r . T h ere a r e .s t ill so m an y o c c a s io n s w h ere he h a s to be h im s e lf, w ithout the o p p o r tun ity to h a v e so m e o n e e ls e p ro g ra m m in g h im o r putting h im in the i righ t lig h t, that 1 don't think th e r e is any d an ger w h a tev er of the A m e r ic a n p eo p le b ein g so ld a b ill o f g ood s on anybody. 28 8 l I C u r tis : Do you think it w ould e v e r be a c a d e m ic a lly ju stifia b le to o ffe r a c o u r s e in sp e e c h w r itin g ? Do you think it is a le g itim a te d is c ip lin e in w h ich to tr a in a p e r so n ? I A n d r e w s: S u re. I don't s e e a r e a so n why not. I'm su re th at, j to the e x te n t that sp ee c h w r itin g d o e s not a lw a y s s e r v e the public in te r e s t , that p o s sib ly cou ld be m in im iz e d by h avin g m o re fo r m a l tra in in g and by r e c o g n iz in g that it's [sp e e c h w r itin g ] going to be a part of pub lic a ffa ir s so w e m ig h t a s w e ll apply the b e s t k n ow led ge to it. C u r tis : I'v e tr ie d to g iv e a fa ir r e p r e se n ta tio n of w hat you do fr o m m y p e r s p e c tiv e a s a r e s e a r c h e r . Is th e r e anything about what you do that I have not a sk ed you about that you think ought to be in - I elu d ed in m y stu d y , o r h ave I p retty w e ll h it the h igh p oin ts ? j A n d r e w s: One thing that you ought to r e c o g n iz e about the l | e x is te n c e of a w r itin g and r e s e a r c h sta ff a s p a rt of the W hite H ouse ; sta ff is that sp e e c h w r itin g is fa r fr o m our only fu n ction . A s a m a tte r of fa c t, if p r e p a r in g fo r the P r e s id e n t ’s public s p e e c h e s w as the on ly thin g w e d id , w e w ou ld n't be n e a r ly a s la r g e an o ffic e a s w e a r e . In d e e d , the P r e s id e n t m ay n eed no w ritin g and r e s e a r c h sta ff at a ll b e c a u se he sp ea k s e x te m p o r a n e o u sly so m u ch of the tim e . He know s b e tter w hat he w ants to sa y than anyone e ls e d o e s so m u ch of the tim e . A s I have a lre a d y s a id , h e and h is m a jo r su b sta n tiv e p o lic y -m a k in g i ! a id e s a r e so h e a v ily in v o lv ed in the p re p a r a tio n of r e a lly im p o rta n t j sp e e c h e s w h ere a te x t is u s e d , that th is o ffic e w ould p r a c tic a lly be 289 ! .u n n e ce ssa ry . But th e re is an in c r e d ib le volu m e of w r itte n c o m m u n ic a tion lik e le g is la tiv e m e s s a g e s and a ll o th er kinds of sta te p a p ers that have to go out in the P r e s id e n t's nam e that th is o ffic e is h e a v ily in volved in. C u r tis : 1 w ould a ssu m e that m o st peop le w ou ld n't know that. A n d r e w s: C o r r e c t. 1 find that m o st p eop le d on 't. They think a sp e e c h w r ite r is a sp e e c h w r ite r . And I c a ll m y s e lf a sp e e c h w r ite r b e c a u se th a t's the te r m p eo p le u n d erstan d . But, in the f ir s t four j j m on th s o f e v e r y y e a r , we a r e up to our n e ck s in w ritin g le g is la tiv e [ m e s s a g e s to C o n g r e ss w h ich in v o lv e s a trem en d o u s am ount of lia is o n w ith th e D o m e stic C ou n cil S taff h e r e in the W hite H o u se, p lu s w hatever C ab in et d eap rtm en t is in volved ; a ls o , a ll kinds of c le a r a n c e s and n a il-i ing down of b u dgetary c o n c e r n s w ith the O ffice o f M anagem ent and Bud-’ !get. In te r m s of the s h e e r volu m e of num ber o f w ord s that co m e out ol j th is o ffic e , it's o v e rw h elm in g in c o m p a r iso n to the sp e e c h te x ts per se that w e do. i ! T ex L e z a r C u r tis : W here do the P r e s id e n t's sp e e c h id e a s o r ig in a te ? D o e s th e P r e s id e n t c o m e to you and sa y , "T his is what I want to sp eak on," and you h an d le it fro m th e re ? I L eza r: W ell, a la r g e am ount of the tim e th a t's e x a c tly what i I 1 h ap p en s. 1 think the one thin g you w ould r e a lly be in te r e s te d in about 290 th is P r e sid e n t is that th is m an d o e sn 't le t anything go th at i s n ’t h is . That i s r e a lly tru e; so m uch so that it 's a lm o st fr u str a tin g on o c c a sio n C u r tis : You m ea n , a s s a y , d iffe r e n tia te d fro m Lyndon Joh n son ? L e z a r : W ell, a s I sa y , I ca n 't c o m p a re and I don 't know but j I g e n e r a l a c a d e m ic m od e of thought on th is is that a sp e e c h w r ite r w rites! 1 | so m e th in g , so m e o n e e ls e h on es down the la n g u a g e, g e ts the r h e to r ic l in , and fig u r e s ou t, "W ell, th e s e a r e the e m p h a se s w e a r e going to put in," the P r e s id e n t lo o k s at it and s a y s , "O kay, fin e," g o e s w ith that and th e p o licy so r t o f flo w s around that sta te m e n t. O b v io u sly , the p o licy d o es flo w around the e m p h a se s of m a jo r P r e s id e n tia l s ta te - I m e n ts , a d d r e s s e s , and so fo r th , but the so u r c e of th o se e m p h a se s a r e e n tir e ly the P r e s id e n t's through a ll k in d s of p r o c e s s e s . F o r e x a m p le , he m ight g et up at 2:30 A .M . and d icta te a long m em o sa y in g , " T h ese i a r e the e m p h a se s I ’m in te r e s te d in." C u r tis: When you sa y " em p h a ses" do you m ean m a in id e a s ? L eza r: The high p o in ts, y e s . Say he w ants to ta lk about b u s- i ing; e v e n so m eth in g a s m undane a s w h eth er he w ants to sta r t off on the sid e of the a n g e ls or end up on the sid e of the a n g e ls. If he w an ts to g iv e a sp e e c h co m in g out a g a in st b u sin g , but a ls o f e e ls v e r y str o n g ly about equal ed u cation al op p ortu nity and o th er m ea n s o f attem p tin g to [cr ea te equal ed u ca tio n a l op p ortu n ity, w h eth er he w an ts to s ta r t out i i |ta lk in g about th e eq u al ed u ca tio n a l opp ortu nity and end up ta lk in g about 291 b u sin g , he d e c id e s . H e's not lik e C h u rch ill in the s e n s e that he u sed [ ; i to sp en d two o r th r ee d ays h oled up b e fo re h is s p e e c h e s . But the P r e sid e n t is v e r y , v e r y c a r e fu l w ith h is s p e e c h e s . A trem en d o u s am ount of what he sa y s is what 1 c a ll "talking on the b a lls of h is fe e t." W e'll g iv e h im so m e th o u g h ts, id e a s , and so fo rth , h e 'll look at them ; i I and they m igh t sp ur h im to think of so m e th in g e ls e . A ls o , he rea d s a trem en d o u s am ount and lo v e s biograp h y. L a te ly , h e 's been read in g B la k e 's D is r a e li. The o th er d ay, he w as talk in g about the r e o r g a n i za tio n of the W hite H ou se sta ff and ju st h it u s w ith an an ecd ote fro m B la k e 's D is r a e li that is b u ried so m e w h e r e in its 900 p a g e s. C u r tis : Is m o st of h is sp eak in g e x te m p o r a n e o u s? L e z a r : A trem en d o u s p e r c e n ta g e of it i s . [ C u r tis : What about h is im p ortan t a d d r e ss e s : th e State of the 'Union a d d r e s s e s , m a jo r p o lic y s ta te m e n ts , e tc . ? I L e z a r : T h o se , of c o u r s e , a r e w r itte n , but h e d o es get a g r e a t lam ount of m a te r ia l fro m u s . I t’s ju st a m a zin g to s e e what he d o es w ith it. I - C u r tis : Do you e v e r go o v e r to the W hite H ou se and m e e t w ith h im and d is c u s s id e a s ? L e z a r : I'm the m o st ju n ior w r ite r h e r e and s in c e I'm ju s t jrecen tly out of c o lle g e , I don 't h ave the fo r m a l q u a lific a tio n s of so m e o th er p eop le h e r e , but that is the g e n e r a l fo rm a t. C u rtis: Do y o u r a s s ig n m e n ts th en co m e fr o m R ay ? i 292 L e z a r : It v a r ie s . T h ere is no s e t guide a s to how it w ill h a p pen. The P r e sid e n t m ig h t c a ll R ay and s a y , "Have so and so do l so m eth in g ," he m igh t c a ll you in on so m eth in g b ein g planned, a cou p le o f p eop le m igh t play around w ith so m e id e a s and put them to g e th e r and c o m e up w ith one thing that he lo o k s a t, or the P r e s id e n t h im s e lf m ight co m e up w ith s ix th in gs that he lo o k s at. But 1 think the r e a lly im p o r - I i tant thing to u n d erstan d about R ich ard N ixon is that he r e a lly is d iffer-j ent fr o m at le a s t the g e n e r a l co n c ep tio n of how so m e o n e w ork s w ith a j sp e e c h w r ite r . ! C u r tis : You m ean lik e w hen he w as on te le v is io n the o th er nigh t w ith h is y e llo w pad; th at th a t's r e a lly how it happend in the p r e p a r a tio n of h is e le c tio n v ic to r y sp e e c h ? L e z a r : Y eah, s u r e . I don 't know who w as p layin g around w ith jideas on th at, but I'm su r e he [N ixon ] w as g iv en a lo t of m a te r ia l. ! S om e of the lin e s m ig h t h ave su r v iv e d , so m e of th em m igh t n e v e r have I jsu rvived . ! i C u rtis: Then the y e llo w pad co n cep t of h is sp e e c h p rep a ra tio n jp r o ce ss is r e a lly tr u e ? L e z a r : Y eah , it 's r e a lly tru e. It's ju st a m a zin g to s e e how tr u e it i s . S om e of us a r e v e r y proud of our fo r m a l q u a lific a tio n s in te r m s of tra in in g and our a b ility to turn in a s e n te n c e , but it 's am azin g to s e e the P r e s id e n t at w ork. S o m e tim e s y o u 'll do so m e th in g and h e ’ll sen d it b ack to you not to s a y , "N o, I don 't lik e it," but to c o r r e c t so m e th in g , to ed it it, o r to ch an ge it around b e fo re he g o e s off to do another v e r s io n of it. H e ’s u n b e lie v a b le s o m e tim e s , m ean in g the guy r e a lly h as a good fe e lin g fo r w ritin g . C u r tis: A s a sp e e c h w r ite r , do you en gage in oth er s p e e c h - r e la te d a c tiv it ie s lik e d e liv e r y , v o ic e , o r g e s tu r e s ? ! I L e z a r : We don't w ith h im . Of c o u r s e , w e m igh t sa y , "G ee, j you look aw ful stan ding th e r e w ithout a podium . Why not u se one n ex t tim e?" But h e 's been a m ajor p o litic a l fig u r e for 25 or 26 y e a r s now , and h e 's p retty s e t in h is w ays in te r m s of how he d e liv e r s so m e th in g . It's v e r y , v ery d iffic u lt to ch an ge. H e 's not an e x p e r im e n ta lis t in th e s e n s e th at Lyndon John son w as w ith, s a y , what LBJ c a lle d "M other": the g r e a t read in g d e v ic e o v e r the le n s of the c a m e r a . He is not m uch in that reg a rd and going back to th e v ic to r y sp e e c h you w e re r e fe r r in g to b e fo r e , he had it in fro n t of h im . Now m o st m a jo r p o litic a n s don 't i s it th e r e and m ak e it ap p aren t that th ey have got so m eth in g w r itte n in | fron t o f th em . H e 's p retty s e t in th at reg a rd . C u r tis : T h ere have b een so m e c r it ic s in our fie ld that have lod ged so m e s e v e r e c o m p la in ts a g a in st what you do. I'd lik e to h ave you r r e a c tio n about th e ir c o m p la in ts. E s s e n tia lly what th e s e c r it ic s o b ject to about th e sp e e c h w r itin g p r o c e s s is that it c la im s its j u s t if i c a tio n on th e p la tfo rm of " b u sy n e ss." The P r e s id e n t is ju s t too b u sy to h a v e th e tim e to do it. How do you r e a c t to th a t? Is " b u sy n ess" a le g itim a te r e a so n to h ave s p e e c h w r ite r s ? 294 L e z a r : W ell, 1 think you have got to go back a little b it fu rth er than that. You have to go back to what it is th at so m e o n e w ould o b je c t to about so m e o n e e ls e w ritin g so m e th in g . S u re , I can s e e an o b jectio n p o ssib ly if I w e re to s it down at m y ty p e w r ite r and w r ite a s p e e c h , g iv e it to the P r e s id e n t, and he w ould s it down and g iv e it v erb a tim . But th a t's not w hat h ap p en s. He is a bu sy m an, o b v io u sly , and a trem en d o u s n u m b er of th in g s have to be sa id . E v e r y tim e a p ie c e of le g is la tio n g o e s out th e r e h as to be an ex p la n a tio n fo r it. It's one tiling to have so m eth in g dow n, to play w ith th at, h ave the fa c ts and fig u r e s , to add to th o se fa c ts and fig u r e s , and i t ’s an oth er thing to have to c r e a te that fro m the b egin n in g. In that r e g a r d , " b u sy n ess" is a ju s tifia b le exp lan ation o f why i t ’s good to have s p e e c h w r it e r s . But that sh ou ld n 't m ean that 1 w ould ju s tify so m e o n e ju st prod u cin g s o m e thin g that the P r e s id e n t u s e s v e rb a tim b e c a u se that is not what h ap p en s. I C u r tis : A n other o b je ctio n is th at the v o ter m ay g et fr o m ghost-: w r itte n s p e e c h e s a fa ls e im p r e s s io n of the P r e sid e n t; that b e c a u se of h is g h o s tw r ite r s , so m eh o w what he sa y s is not r e a lly h is . Is that tr u e ? L e z a r : It's not tru e of th is P r e s id e n t. You h ea r a lo t about S o r e n so n and how he w as r e a lly K en n ed y's a lte r ego and sy m p a teg o ! |over the y e a r s . W ell, I w onder w h eth er th a t's r e a lly tru e. K ennedy j i jwas m uch m o re fin ish e d in h is s p e e c h e s that he had in fro n t of h im and I 295 i j d e liv e r e d fr o m the tex t than N ixon is . N ixon is a m uch m o re " c o n v e r- s a tio n a lis tic " kind of sp e a k e r and th a t's what he r e a lly lik e s . H e g iv e s a sp e e c h v e r y m uch lik e he i s . I think 97 p e r c e n t of the a d ju stm en t, in te r m s of when w e do so m eth in g fo r h im , is our ad ju stm en t to h im . I C u r tis : H ow d o e s the P r e s id e n t add h is p e r so n a l touch to j I so m eth in g that h as b een w ritten fo r h im ? i L e za r : 1 ca n 't e v en think in that m od e b e c a u se it's not a s if ) th e re is a p e r so n a l touch added to it. ■ i C u r tis : In o th er w o r d s, you know the P r e s id e n t's sty le so w e ll - that you can e a s ily w r ite fo r h im ? L e z a r : W ell, it's not ev en a m a tter of that. It's a m a tte r of u s know ing the P r e s id e n t's sty le and ju st w ritin g in it. 1 k eep s t r e s s - <ing th is point and I c a n 't s t r e s s it too m u ch , th at h e r e a lly ch a n g es jth in gs. He r e a lly d o e s , no m a tter who is w orking on so m eth in g for | ihim . We do know the P r e s id e n t's sty le p retty w e ll and o b v io u sly a lo t i of tim e s w e h it e x a c tly what he w a n ts, but it 's m o r e ou r im ita tio n of h im than anything e ls e . C u r tis : In r e sp o n se to m y le tte r in q u irin g about the p o s s ib ility of an in te r v ie w , one of your fo r m e r c o lle a g u e s sta ted th is in h is letter: "It is a fir m p o licy of m in e not to d is c u s s m y a c tiv itie s a s a s p e e c h - w r ite r . I f e e l that th o se doing th is w ork sh ould r em a in a s anon ym ous 'as p o s s ib le ." D on 't you f e e l that th is kind of attitu d e e n c o u r a g e s m is - i ]im p r e s s io n s by th e p u b lic, g e n e r a l d is tr u s t and o v e r a ll su s p ic io n of | 296 Ithe kind of w ork you do ? L e z a r : Y e s, 1 think it d o e s, but I a lso think a lo t of sp e e c h - w r ite r s r e v e l in the an on ym ity b e c a u se the anon ym ity ca n a llo w them to c la im a lo t m o r e of th e ir own in flu en ce than a c tu a lly e x is t s . On each p a r ticu la r sp e e c h , a c e r ta in lim ite d body of p eop le try to h e lp out the P r e s id e n t and in th o se in s ta n c e s w e do not lik e to talk about who | w orked on what s p e e c h - -w e p r e fe r that kind of an on ym ity. B ill B u ck - , I le y , on o c c a s io n , h as sa id that John K enneth G alb raith is goin g to go j o v e r to the K ennedy g ra v e s ite and c h is e l "John K enneth G albraith" o v e r a cou p le of the etch ed p h r a s e s . O b v io u sly , w e do not want to get into that so r t of thin g. In th at r eg a r d , 1 think anon ym ity is im p ortan t. C u r tis : I've h eard it sa id that th e u se of g h o s tw r ite r s p ro d u ces i c o n s e r v a tis m b e c a u se the p o litic ia n lo s e s c o n tr o l of h is id e a s and th e ir d e v e lo p m en t to a sp e e c h w r ite r who, b e c a u se he puts so m uch of ! h im s e lf on the lin e by what he w r ite s , ten d s to w ater down what he s a y s . On the o th er hand, if the P r e s id e n t o r the p o litic ia n w ould w rite it, it w ould lik e ly be m o re str a ig h tfo rw a rd . L e z a r : I w ould tend to think th at a s p e e c h w r ite r w ould b e --n o m a tte r how good h e i s - - a lo t l e s s c o n s e r v a tiv e in w hat h e w ro te fo r two r e a so n s: ( 1) he d o e sn 't b ear th e r e sp o n s ib ility of b ein g the P r e s i d en t and (2) he know s that th e P r e sid e n t is goin g to be a b le to ch an ge it ! w hen he g e ts it. The s p e e c h w r ite r 's w h ole r e s p o n s ib ility is to give the P r e s id e n t so m e th in g that is d ifferen t; th a t's n o tic e a b le and 297 so m e th in g that he can tak e p ride in . A t le a s t th a t's b een the r e s p o n s i b ility in r e c e n t h is to r y . A s a r e s u lt, a sp e e c h w r ite r w ould tend to be l e s s c o n s e r v a tiv e , by and la r g e . C u rtis: O ften the a ssu m p tio n is m ad e that a good sp ea k er is lik e ly to be a good sta te sm a n o r that a bad sp e a k e r is u n lik ely to be a good p o litic ia n . I don't know that 1 n e c e s s a r ily a g r e e or d is a g r e e , but the g e n e r a l public ten d s to equate good sp eak in g w ith good s ta te s m a n - . sh ip . If m o st of the P r e s id e n t's s p e e c h e s a r e w ritten by s p e e c h - w r ite r s , do we r e a lly h a v e any good e v id en ce by w h ich to c r itic a lly judge what the P r e sid e n t sa y s ? L e z a r : I w ould think n ot, if your o p era tin g p r in cip a l h y p o th e- i s is is c o r r e c t. But I, of c o u r s e , don 't a g r e e w ith that; that i s , that a v ery la r g e p e r ce n ta g e of what the P r e sid e n t sa y s is w ritten by o th er !p eo p le. I ju st don't think th a t's tru e. I think that p a r tic u la r ly what you s e e in the P r e s id e n t's s p e e c h e s is that the guy h a s an in c r e d ib ly lo g ic a l m in d --m u c h m o r e so than any sp e e c h w r ite r I can think of. He lik e s to go to 1, 1 sub a , 1 sub b, b sub 1, sub 2. He r e a lly d o e s think lik e that and that r e a lly d o es c o m e out in the sp e e c h . If you look at any o f h is V ietn am s p e e c h e s , fo r e x a m p le , th a t's v e r y tru e. 1 think that ir P r e sid e n t N ix o n 's sp e e c h e s you h ave a fa ir ly good judge o f a |lot of the m an. | C u rtis: Oo you think it w ould be b e tte r fo r our so c ie ty if w e d isc o u r a g e d the u se o f sp e e c h w r ite r s and in ste a d en co u ra g ed ou r ! 298 p o litic a l le a d e r s to sp eak out c o u r a g e o u sly , r e a liz in g that so m e w ould -naturally c o m e a c r o s s b e tte r ? L e z a r : I think he d o e s do that a lo t. I can think of a ll kinds of i in s ta n c e s . If you look during th e ca m p a ig n , fo r e x a m p le , w hen h e did go out, he w as sp ea k in g fro m the stu m p. We m ayb e ga v e h im a co u p le o f p a g es of th o u g h ts--a n d r e a lly it w as lim ite d to th a t--b e c a u s e n in e j ! tim e s out o f ten he knew the p o litic a l situ a tio n th e r e , he knew what he , w anted to sa y and he knew what is s u e s he w anted to ta lk about. One m ee tin g we had w ith h im , he sa t down and ju st w anted to talk about the k in d s of th in gs he f e lt w e r e im p ortan t is s u e s and sh ou ld be em p h a sized ; the k in d s of th in gs that he should talk on to o th e r p e o p le . If yuar o p era tin g p r in c ip le is that we w r ite a tre m en d o u s p e r c e n ta g e o f what he sa y s o f that you cou ld s e e a d ir e c t r e la tio n sh ip b etw een 90 p e r c e n t of w hat I tu rn out fro m h e r e and what he s a y s - - w e l l , it's ju st not tr u e . It ju st r e a lly is n 't. 1 think w e se r v e a v ita l fu n ction in g ettin g h im Ithinking alon g d iffe r e n t lin e s that he m igh t not o th e r w is e think along 'b e c a u se of how busy he is . But beyond that it's R ich ard N ixon. He h a s b een in th is too long and h e ’B so m uch m o r e e x p e r ie n c e d than any of u s a r e th at h e 's not about to tak e anyone e ls e ' s w ord s w h ole. C u r tis : Do you p e r so n a lly f e e l that it w ould be a c a d e m ic a lly ju s tifia b le to o ffe r a c o u r se in sp e e c h w r itin g ? j L eza r: I think it w ould be ju s tifia b le b e c a u se m o st in v o lv ed ^ p eop le in s o c ie ty h a v e to g iv e a sp e e c h at so m e tim e . I think fo r that 299 r e a so n i t ’s ju s tifia b le , c e r ta in ly . But a s to w h eth er o r not th e r e j sh ould be a tra in ed e lit e c a d r e of s p e e c h w r ite r s w h o se m ain p u rp ose in b ein g s p e e c h w r ite r s is to s e r v e so m e o n e e ls e , 1 don 't think th a t's n e c e s s a r y . I don't think that the b e st s p e e c h w r ite r s a r e sp e e c h w r ite r s who a r e p r o fe s s io n a lly tra in ed to s e r v e so m e o n e e ls e . 1 i C u rtis: A ck n ow led gin g th e in flu e n c e of sp e e c h w r ite r s th en , J how are c r it ic s r e a lly su p p osed to d eal w ith p o litic a l sp eak in g and its c r it ic is m ? Do they have to go through the s p e e c h w r ite r s , d is s e c tin g th e m , and d e ter m in in g th e ir in flu en ce in th e sp e e c h and then in that ! c o n tex t a n a ly z e th e sp e a k e r and the s p e e c h ? L e z a r : I think that v a r ie s . I think in th is P r e s id e n c y , no. 1 don't think you'd have to do th at. 1 think if you a r e talk in g about a 1 S o r e n so n sp e e c h o r if you a re talk in g about a D ick G oodwin sp e e c h , 'm aybe! G oodw in, fo r e x a m p le , h a s a m a s s iv e in flu en ce o v e r the j i p eop le he w r ite s fo r , m a in ly b e c a u se h e 's u su a lly s m a r te r than th e p eop le he w r ite s fo r and h e 's m uch m o r e lite r a te than m o st of th em . I think w hen G oodw in 's in v o lv e d , you sh ou ld look a little bit fu rth er down the lin e and look a t G oodw in. But I think w hen you a r e talk in g about N ixon , th a t's ju s t not tru e. C u r tis : So what you a r e sa y in g is r e a lly b e fo re w e can attem p t .any v ia b le r h e to r ic a l c r it ic is m , you sh ou ld know what th e p r o c e s s was? 1 L e z a r : R igh t. The p r o c e s s is d iffe r e n t and la c k s u n ifo rm ity ! fr o m p e r so n to p e r so n . T h at’s the p oin t, I think. C u rtis: What is your background? L e z a r : I grad u ated fr o m Y ale in 1970 and w as h ir ed a s S p ec ia l A s s is ta n t to W illiam F . B u ck ley . W hile I w as w ith h im , w e w ro te a book to g eth er c a lle d M ajor I s s u e s of the T im e , w hich is not out y e t so j w ill h ave to be handled ra th er c a r e fu lly in you r d is s e r ta tio n . The bookj i b a s ic a lly d e a ls w ith what we sa w a s the m a jo r is s u e s of th is m o d ern i i tim e , the lib e r a l and c o n se r v a tiv e p o sitio n s su rrou n d in g e a c h is s u e , j and we tr ie d to e lu c id a te them as m uch a s p o s sib le w h ile n ot try in g to argu e fo r e ith e r s id e . A lthough 1 grad u ated in in te n siv e p h ilo so p h y , 1 i did study A m e r ic a n o r a to r y and d eb ate. 1 w as on m y way to O xford in J u r isp ru d e n c e when I w as talk ed into w ork in g w ith B u ck ley . A y e a r la te r , I w as again on m y way to O xford when I got talk ed into co m in g h e r e , i C u r tis : H ow did you m ak e your co n ta ct h e r e ? W as it through Ray P r ic e ? I L e z a r : Y e s. C u rtis: D id you h ave any fo r m a l tra in in g a s a s p e e c h w r ite r :b e fo r e you w ent to w ork h e r e at the W hite H o u se? L e z a r : W ell, a s 1 sa id , I stu d ied h is to r y o f A m e r ic a n o r a to r y and w as taught how to w r ite sp e e c h e s at Y ale. C u rtis: A s a s p e e c h w r ite r , how a r e you g iv en str u c tu r a l c r e d it in the W hite H ou se o r g a n iz a tio n a l c h a r t? A s th ey b reak it down, what do th ey c a ll w hat you do ? ! 301 L e z a r : I think our sta ff is r e fe r r e d to a s the "W riting and j R e se a r c h S taff." We a lso have a r e s e a r c h c o n tin g en t, too. C u r tis : So you don 't do the a ctu a l r e s e a r c h ? They fe e d in fo r m a tio n to yo u ? I L e z a r : W ell, th a t's kind of a w e ird thin g. I've w orked a lo t w ith r e s e a r c h on N ation al R ev iew and o th er r e s e a r c h f a c ilit ie s , plus I've done a lo t of r e s e a r c h m y s e lf in c o lle g e , p rep a rin g m y th e s is and i so fo rth , but it 's v e r y str a n g e h e r e , b e c a u se what you g e t fr o m the r e s e a r c h sta ff is u n even . T h eir b e st s e r v ic e is th e ir a b ility to c o lle c t a g r e a t d e a l of in fo rm a tio n and you can th en go th rou gh it. They t a r e n 't, h o w e v e r , an end in t h e m s e lv e s . T hey ca n 't c o m e to you and sa y , "O kay, h e r e a r e fifte e n fa c ts . You ca n h ave fiv e of them and th a t'll be your sp e e c h ." T h e r e 's a g r e a t d e a l of d ig g in g that has to be | done and th en you a ls o have to draw on your own e x p e r ie n c e . C u r tis : H ow lon g have you been w ritin g for th e P r e s id e n t? L e z a r : A bout a y e a r and se v e n m on th s. C u r tis : Is th e r e any a s p e c t of your w ork that I've fa ile d to c o v e r in m y q u e s tio n s ? L e z a r : I su p p o se one of the m ain th in gs I w as h ir e d fo r w a sn 't ju s t the w r itin g , but it w as a lso a s an id ea kind of p e r so n . I k ick around id e a s a lo t, not ju st on th is sta ff, but in th e W hite H ou se g e n ie r a lly . What 1 s p e c ia liz e d in in p h ilosop h y w as try in g to find th e I u n d erly in g a ssu m p tio n s and p r e su m p tio n s in h er en t in any w ay of look in g at a p ro b lem . A s a r e s u lt. 1 do a lo t of that in ju st g e n e r a l t e r m s , try in g to q u estio n what b ia s e s are im p lic it w ithin sta tin g any one p a r tic u la r thing o r in going in one p a r ticu la r d ir e c tio n . I do an aw ful lo t of that kind of thin g. C u r tis : Do you w r ite fo r anyone o th e r than ju st th e P r e s id e n t? 1 i L e z a r : 1 have on a p e r so n a l b a s is fo r p eop le I'd rath er not r e v e a l. But in te r m s of m y jo b , no. j | C u r tis : You a r e n e v e r d rafted to go o v e r and w r ite fo r the V ice P r e s id e n t o r any of the c a b in e t m e m b e r s ? i L e z a r : The V ice P r e s id e n t h a s a sp e e c h w r itin g sta ff and it's q u ite good now . One o f m y b e st fr ie n d s is a s p e e c h w r ite r fo r h im who I is a r e a l c o n s e r v a tiv e . j I C u rtis: On the sp e e c h w r itin g sta ff, do you h ave c e r ta in s p e c i a l i s t s , su ch a s lite r a r y s p e c ia lis t s , an o r g a n iz a tio n s p e c ia lis t , an I I I argu m en t and r ea so n in g s p e c ia lis t , and so on ? L e z a r : 1 su p p o se th a t's tru e to so m e e x te n t, but it is a lso la r g e ly ig n o red by us when w e h ave the sa y a s to who w ill w ork on so m eth in g . The P r e s id e n t o b v io u sly h a s c e r ta in p r e fe r e n c e s in te r m s of c e r ta in ty p e s o f sp e e c h e s and u su a lly a s s o c ia t e s th o se w ith p a r tic u la r p eo p le. C u r tis : You m ea n , fo r e x a m p le , w hen he i s sp eak in g on jd o m estic is s u e s he m ay c a ll on s o m e o n e - - L eza r: Or w hen he w ants to do so m e th in g th a t's m o re g r a c e fu l than it is c lo s e ly a rg u ed , o r w hen he w ants to do so m e th in g that is m o re hard lin e than it is m o d e r a te . It v a r ie s a g r e a t d ea l in h is e y e s . C u rtis: D o e s the P r e s id e n t g e n e r a lly have an o c c a s io n to sp eak and then find a p u rp o se , or d o es he have a d e s ir e to p ersu a d e and then find an o c c a s io n ? L e z a r : B oth. T h is P r e s id e n t in p a r tic u la r is v e r y m uch in t e r e s te d in b e h a v io r a l p e r su a s io n in that he r e a lly d o es p ick and c h o o se . |You saw th is during the ca m p a ig n if you w atch ed c lo s e ly : a v ery c a r e - { l i fu lly , sk illfu lly m an aged e ffo r t of p e r su a s io n on know ing w hen to talk and when not to ta lk . So 1 think th e r e is a little bit o f both. O b viou sly, th e r e a r e c e r ta in o c c a s io n s w hen he h a s to sp ea k , h is in au gu ral ad - i d r e s s , fo r e x a m p le . T h ere a r e a la r g e n u m b er of th o se ty p es of s p e e c h e s and if you think of t h o s e - - h is m a jo r a d d r e s s e s - - th e y are la r g e ly p r e s c r ib e d . But in te r m s of w hen he g o e s out and ju st sp ea k s at a d in n er o r so m e th in g lik e th a t, he p ick s and c h o o s e s p retty c a r e fu lly . C u r tis : In w orking on a sp e e c h d ra ft, do you w r ite a w hole page at a tim e , or do you w r ite a se n te n c e , then r e w r ite the se n te n c e , lo o k at it a g a in , and add an oth er s e n te n c e ? L e z a r : A little b it of both. I lik e to w r ite a w h ole sp e e c h and igo back o v e r it, d r a ft a fte r d ra ft, until I'm happy w ith it and I think i I that it 's goin g s o m e p la c e . O ther p eo p le a r e v e r y d iffe r e n t. Som e j p eop le h e r e h ave th e e x p e r ie n c e in e d ito r ia l w r itin g th a t I la ck and | 304 \ i th ey ten d to think in m o r e d is c r e te q u a n tities by w r itin g the in b etw een ' l p a r ts and tr a n s itio n s . It's v e r y d iffe r e n t fo r m e p e r so n a lly . 1 tend to think m o r e in te r m s o f unity and try to d ed u ce m y p a r ts fr o m the unity. C u r tis : Do you e v e r read anything aloud a fte r you w r ite it to find out how it sou n d s ? L e za r : Y e s , I do. 1 d ic ta te a lo t w hen 1 w r ite a sp e e c h . I'll i put it on tape and lis te n to it fo r a w h ile and then put it aw ay and not co m e back to it fo r two d a y s. It very m u ch is d epend en t on how it sou n d s. I C u r tis : Do you w ork m o stly alon e o r do you e v e r w ork in c o n ju n ctio n w ith o th e r w r ite r s ? L e z a r : We s o m e tim e s w ork in con ju n ction . I w as h ir e d to w ork w ith R ay P r ic e and so on p a r ticu la r id e a s I w ork c lo s e ly with h im , C u r tis : If you knew the P r e s id e n t w e r e g oin g to g iv e a p a r tic u la r sp e e c h to a p a r tic u la r a u d ie n c e , how m uch a tten tio n w ould you : g iv e to the a u d ien ce fo r that sp e e c h ? L e z a r : T rem en d o u s atten tion . T he P r e s id e n t, in te r m s of m y k n ow led ge of p a st P r e s id e n ts and tec h n iq u es th e y 'v e u sed in sp ea k in g , is trem en d o u s at p e r so n a l id e n tific a tio n w ith a u d ie n c e s. He k n ow s, i b e c a u se h e ’s b een in th is b u s in e s s so lo n g , w h o's who in e v e r y o r g a - j n iz a tio n , th in gs about e v e r y sta te and th e ir c it ie s when he w a s th e r e I b e fo r e and w hat h e sa id . B e c a u s e he h a s v is ite d m o s t c it ie s in the ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J u r . i 'United S ta te s , th e r e is a lw a y s so m e th in g p e r so n a l th at h e can ta lk | i about that a llo w s h im to id en tify h im s e lf w ith that a u d ien ce . He is v e r y c a r e fu l about th is . We try and tune into th at when we g iv e h im m a t e r ia ls . C u rtis: Do you d e v e lo p m o s t of the lin e s and ty p e s of a r g u - ! m en ta tiv e p r o o fs that a r e u sed in a ll of h is s p e e c h e s , o r do o th er | i w r ite r s do it, to o ? L e z a r : O ther s p e e c h w r ite r s do too. I'm the on ly one in the W hite H ou se w h ose b a sic fie ld i s p h ilo so p h y , so a s a r e s u lt, I am often a sk ed to lo o k at so m e th in g that is v e r y c lo s e ly r e a so n e d . Gut o b v io u s ly th e re a r e a lo t of in te llig e n t p eop le h e r e who know how to a r gue a point a s w e ll and so th e r e a r e lo ts of th in g s I don't g et in v o lv ed w ith. t I C u r tis : D o e s th is d ra ftin g p r o c e s s ch an ge as the im p o r ta n c e of I i -the o c c a s io n c h a n g e s? In o th er w o r d s, d o e s the P r e s id e n t tak e m o re p e r so n a l in v o lv e m e n t in the sp e e c h a s the o c c a s io n in c r e a s e s and le s s las the im p o r ta n c e of the o c c a s io n d e c r e a s e s ? L e z a r : What w ill happen is that th e P r e s id e n t w ill h ave m o re in te rp la y w ith the sp e e c h w r ite r on the m o r e im p o rta n t o c c a s io n s . 1 don't think it c h a n g e s in te r m s o f how m uch w e g iv e h im a s p er the ^percentage of w h at's u se d . I don 't think that c h a n g e s fr o m b a s ic a lly •inform al r e m a r k s in the H ose G arden to a m a jo r sta te of th e union a d d r e s s . What is d iffe r e n t is that w e w ill g iv e h im so m e th in g and h e 'll look at it and s a y , "Y eah, 1 lik e th is id e a but 1 don't lik e that id ea . H ere is an oth er id e a that m ig h t be b e tter u sed th e r e . Do s o m e - 1 thing w ith that and le t m e s e e what 1 think o f it." You w ill go through ! that a lot and then fin a lly , when he thinks th in g s a r e going th e righ t i way in te r m s of the e m p h a s e s and d ir e c tio n s he w ants to s e e the I sp e e c h ta k e , he w ill s it dow n and red o the w h ole thin g into what he a c tu a lly w ants to sa y . i ! C u r tis : So it r e a lly is n 't ju st a m a tte r of y o u r co n su ltin g w ith I the P r e s id e n t o n c e and g e ttin g h is id e a s . You c o n su lt w ith h im m any ! i tim e s through w h a tev e r m e a n s ? | I L e z a r : That d ep en d s on w hat h is m ood is ; ju s t what he f e e ls I lik e . i > C u rtis: Do you know w h eth er the P r e s id e n t r e h e a r s e s sp e e c h e s ’b e fo r e he d e liv e r s th e m ? | | | L e z a r : It c e r ta in ly d o e sn 't s e e m that way s o m e tim e s . I h o n - | e s tly don 't know . I kind of doubt it b e c a u se he d o e sn 't s e e m to have |that fin e p o lish of a C h u rch ill and he h a s m any little fo ib le s in h is sp ea k in g that cou ld be o v e r c o m e w ith p r a c tic e , su ch a s e y e c o n ta c t, g e s tu r e s , th in g s lik e th at. C u r tis : A r e m o s t o f h is sp ea k in g o b je c tiv e s in fo r m a tiv e , p e r - jsu a siv e , o r d o e s he m ix th e m ? | L e z a r : H e m ix e s th em . He b e lie v e s in th e o ld Teddy R o o s e - r iv e lt id e a th at you sh ould g e t up th e r e and in fo rm to tr y and m ak e a I 307 poin t. He thinks th a t's im p o rta n t. C u r tis : Do you think that m o st p e o p le know that the P r e sid e n t h a s s p e e c h w r ite r s ? L e z a r : I w ould im a g in e so . C u r tis : Do you think it a ffe c ts th e ir lis te n e r p e r c e p tio n ? L e z a r : I w ould doubt th at. I think he c o m e s a c r o s s v e ry m uch lik e h im s e lf r e g a r d le s s of what p eop le think he is r e a lly lik e . C u r tis : Do you m ak e a c o n s c io u s attem p t to a ffe c t h is im a g e w hen you w rite fo r h im ? L e z a r : You try to m ake a c o n sc io u s attem p t not to tr y and d is to r t h is im a g e fro m the way you know that he is and the way you know he w ants to p r e se n t h im s e lf. O b v io u sly , he h a s m any d iffe r e n t lik e s and m any d iffe r e n t im a g e s . On c e r ta in o c c a s io n s , he m ay want |to s t r e s s one m o r e than a n oth er and you tr y not to c o n tr a d ic t th at. In te r m s of w h eth er we tr y to rem a k e the P r e sid e n t o r "m ake the P r e s i d en t," a s M cG in nis w ould sa y , w e d o n ’t. I C u r tis : Do you e v e r find y o u r s e lf argu in g w ith th e P r e s id e n t o v e r id e a s o r c e r ta in s t r a te g ie s o r a p p r o a c h e s? L e z a r : O h, s u r e , su r e . C u r tis : Is th is e x p e c te d o f you ? L e z a r : I think it is on c e r ta in th in g s. W hen, fo r e x a m p le , h e ’s d e c id ed he is going to C hina and he w ants to m ak e an a n n o u n ce m en t about th at, h e d o e sn 't w ant any a rg u m en t fr o m a s p e e c h w r ite r I 308 w ho's v e ry m uch a g e n e r a lis t, probably, as opposed to K issin g e r . H e's very c a r e fu l of h is tim e in te r m s of m aking su re he gets a b a l anced view p oin t, but m aking su re he g ets the b e st of both s id e s . O b v io u sly , talking to m e w ouldn't be as good as talking to H enry. But X think he h as a g e n e r a lly high regard for id e a s. C u r tis: Can you g iv e m e a rough e stim a te of the num ber of m ajor s p e e c h e s , m in or s p e e c h e s , or other o r a l typ es of p resen ta tio n s the P r e sid e n t en g a g es in in a w eek o r a m onth, h ow ever it is e a s ie s t fo r you to think o f? L e z a r : 1 ju st can 't. They are ju st too volu m in ou s. C u r tis: D oes it offend you to be c a lle d a g h o stw r ite r? L e z a r : I don't know. I ju st don't a s s o c ia te with the word very w e ll. But then I don't lik e b eing c a lle d a sp e e c h w r ite r , e ith e r . i C u r tis: Is th ere anything I ought to talk about in m y d is s e r ta - ! Ition that I have m is s e d ? Is th ere anything I h aven 't ask ed you about that you w ould want m e to p a r ticu la r ly in co rp o ra te ? L ezar: 1 don't r e a lly think so . O b viou sly, th ere are so m any fa c e ts to what we do that it's hard to hit it a ll in ju st a sh o rt d is c u s sio n . Som ething m ight co m e up as you talk to the other w r ite r s . I think the r e a lly k ey , c e n tr a l thing that you ought to talk about if you iwant to d iffe re n tia te the N ixon sp ee ch fro m the Kennedy or R o o se v e lt jspeech is the trem en d ou s "Nixonian" c a s t of th e se sp e e c h e s in te r m s i of how m uch w ork he d oes on them ; in te r m s of w h ere the id ea s co m e fro m ; w h ere the a ctu a l r h e to r ic c o m e s fr o m . C u r tis : If you w e re to b reak h is sp eak in g down into p e r c e n t a g e s , d o es the P r e s id e n t do 90 p e r c e n t of th e w ork on h is s p e e c h e s , 80 o r 70? L e z a r : It v a r ie s on e a ch s p e e c h , but I w ould sa y if you a re ta lk in g about the m a jo r p a rts of the sp eech ; if you are talk in g about the id e a s that a r e in the sp eech ; if you a r e talk in g about a m a jo r w ay o r an gle of e x p r e s s in g h im se lf; I w ould sa y y o u 'r e g ettin g into the upper 80 to 90 p e r c e n t. Today I m igh t w r ite so m e th in g that d o e s n ’t g e t into a sp e e c h and s ix m onths fro m now he m igh t r e m e m b e r th a t--h e has a tr e m e n d o u s m e m o r y --a n d sa y , " W ell, that w a sn 't righ t then but now th a t's a b e tte r way o f putting it than what 1 did th en ." He then m igh t tak e it and run w ith it. B ut th e r e is a trem en d o u s am ount of actu al I p e r so n a l in v o lv e m e n t by the P r e s id e n t h im s e lf in w hat he s a y s . Jack M cD onald C u r tis : How do you get you r a s s ig n m e n ts ? D o e s the P r e s id e n t j c a ll you on the phone and s a y , "C om e on o v e r , I n eed so m e h elp ," o r d o e s he sen d you a m em o ? M cD onald: W e ll, it hap p en s in v a r io u s w a y s. S o m e tim e s you ; do m e e t w ith h im , p erh a p s e v en in a d v a n ce , in w h ich he o u tlin e s h is ' d e s ir e s . The P r e s id e n t, of c o u r s e , is one of the w o r ld 's g r e a te s t s p e e c h w r it e r s , so w ork in g w ith h im is so r t of lik e h elp in g T o sc a n in i con d u ct the NBC Sym phony. H e is one of the g r e a t p o litic a l lite r a r y | c r a ftsm e n of a ll tim e . I think m o r e than any o th e r P r e s id e n t w e 'v e known in our life tim e , h is w ork is h is own. C u r tis : What th en d o es he r e q u ir e of y o u ? Do you p o lish w hat ! he w r ite s or do you sen d h im r e s e a r c h in fo r m a tio n ? I M cD on ald : He m ig h t m ak e h is v iew s and d e s ir e s known in ad - l van ce for w hat he w is h e s d r a fted , w hich w e th en w ill take and p o lish upj and fin ish . Or you cou ld sta r t out cold and sen d h im a d ra ft and th en j ju s t get h is r e a c tio n s . S o m e tim e s he ju st m igh t tak e that d ra ft, r e - j w rite it and p o lish it up o r he m igh t ju st sen d it back to you w ith a notej sa y in g , "You m u st m ak e th e se p oin ts th at you don't h ave in th ere: 1, j 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7." I i C u r tis : Do you w ork in c o lla b o r a tio n w ith o th er s p e e c h w r it e r s ' t i M cD onald: No. C u r tis : A lw a y s alon e on your ow n p r o je c ts ? M cD onald: T h at’s righ t. T his h a s b een d e sc r ib e d a s b ein g s o r t o f lik e a law fir m in w h ich a ll the w r ite r s a r e p a r tn e r s but th ey i handle th e ir ow n c a s e s , w ith the e x c e p tio n of R ay, o f c o u r s e , who s e e s e v e r y th in g . A lo t of tim e s he m igh t have you co m e up and bat id e a s around w ith h im o v e r how to im p ro v e a d ra ft th a t's b e fo re you. C u r tis: Do you b eco m e a s p e c ia lis t in a c e r ta in a r e a ? M cD on ald : N ot o f fic ia lly , but i t ’s lo g ic a l to sa y , " W ell, Jack |did that m e s s a g e b e fo re so now we are goin g to veto th a t b ill he w ould 311 be the m an to w r ite the d raft of the v eto ." But th e r e is no fo r m a l d e s ign ation o f a ss ig n m e n t a r e a s . C u r tis : Do you have a lite r a r y s p e c ia lis t , a s p e c ia lis t in a r g u m en ta tio n , a s p e c ia lis t in o r g a n iz a tio n , e tc ? | | M cD on ald : 1 w as ju st talking about that w ith Ray [P r ic e ] the ' |oth er d a y --th a t in h is m ind , at le a s t , I have so m e stro n g c h a r a c te r is - i I I t ic s and JLee [H uebn er] h as stro n g c h a r a c t e r is tic s and th e o th e r w riter^ h a v e , the w ay Ray s a y s , " E veryon e is str o n g e r on so m e poin ts than ! ! J i o th er p o in ts." So in h is m ind at le a s t, he h a s us vagu ely c la s s if ie d a s ' to who m ig h t be the m o re lite r a r y p r o se and so m eb o d y e ls e m igh t be the m o re s tr a ig h t-a h e a d n ew s w r ite r . C u r tis : He [R ay P r ic e ] d is tr ib u te s the a s s ig n m e n ts ? M cD on ald : T h at's righ t. A s he s e e s an a s s ig n m e n t, h e know s [w hat's c a lle d fo r and he m u st sa y , " W ell, Jack w ould probab ly do the b e st job." But it is v e ry h azy and in fo r m a l, not str u c tu r ed . C u r tis : I have often w on d ered if you h ave r e s p o n s ib ilitie s o th er than w r itin g s p e e c h e s ? M cD onald: Y e s, of c o u r s e . S p e e c h e s a r e one thing but the P r e s id e n tia l d o cu m en ts a r e an oth er and a ll the c o m m u n ic a tio n s he h as w ith C o n g r e ss and o th e r s , w e do a ls o . N o r m a lly fo r h im we don 't w r ite a sp e e c h a s p erh ap s y o u 'v e w ritten a sp e e c h in the p a st. Now jwith the rad io s p e e c h e s , w e w ould g iv e h im a fu ll 1500 w ord d r a ft, but i m o st of th e tim e he r e a lly sp e a k s e x te m p o r a n e o u sly b a sed on our ; t u ~ giv in g h im tw o th in g s: (1) a " fact s h e e t" --th a t's e v er y th in g we know about the ev en t that w ould be h elp fu l: e v er y th in g we know about the o r g a n iza tio n ; e v er y th in g we can find out about who is going to be th ere; e v er y th in g that he h a s e v e r sa id b e fo re if h e 's e v e r ap p eared th e r e , and so fo rth . And then (2) w hat w e c a ll " su g g e ste d r e m a r k s," w hich a re little p a r a g r a p h s, little b its and p ie c e s of s u g g e s tio n s o r th e m e s , ; 1 p h r a se s o r w o rd s. He read s a ll of th is and then he th ro w s it aw ay and th en stan d s up to sp ea k "off the cu ff," but w ith a ll that background in fo rm a tio n and a ll of h is ow n th ou gh ts. S o m e tim e s he m igh t u s e none of the stu ff that you g iv e h im . C u rtis: A re the e x te m p o r a n e o u s s p e e c h e s u su a lly ta p e - r e c o r d e d and file d ? j M cD on ald : Y e s , o r th ey a r e tr a n sc r ib e d and d istr ib u te d to the i p r e s s righ t a fte r the ev en t. C u r tis : T e ll m e about the s p e e c h -filin g s y s te m . Do you f ile s p e e c h e s under c i t i e s , i s s u e s , d a te s , or w hat? M cD on ald : T h ere is an o ffic ia l g o v e rn m e n t p u b lica tio n into i j w h ich e v e r y th in g the P r e s id e n t s a y s is c o lle c te d . T his p u b lication i c o m e s out o n ce a w e e k , but it 's ju s t a c h r o n o lo g ic a l thin g. O ur r e s e a r c h p eo p le f ile s p e e c h e s any n u m b er o f w ays - -b y w hat h e s a id , and i g e o g r a p h ic a lly , to o . I I j C u r tis : So if the P r e s id e n t w e r e goin g to sp ea k in St. L o u is, ! fo r e x a m p le , you co u ld th en c a ll you r r e s e a r c h p eo p le and find out 313 what, if anything, he had said in that p articu lar c ity ? M cD onald: That's right, and th eir fir s t place to go would be the "Index of the P r e sid e n tia l D ocum ents." C urtis: I am cu rio u s about the P r e sid e n t's y ello w le g a l pad. " i Is this r ep re sen ta tiv e of how he really c o m p o se s sp e e c h e s ? j ! McDonald: I would say that the y e llo w pad, on what you m ight i c a ll "preem inent fo rm s" like his acceptance a d d r e ss, h is inaugural j a d d re ss, and the m ore im portant o n e s, he ca lled for su g g estio n s from all of us which we gave. But then he didn't co n su lt us any further. F ro m all th is, and then m o stly fro m h is own id e a s, he w rote h is own acceptance a d d r e ss. I im agin e that the y e llo w leg a l pad is ju st his ! j sty le of roughing it. We w ere all down at the convention and we waited with in te r e s t to hear the a ccep tan ce ad d ress ju st lik e everyon e e ls e . We a re like that too when he is speaking ex tem p o ra n eo u sly on a c a m paign tour. W e've provided him m a te r ia ls and w ondered how it would I turn out. Like one o f the trip s I went on was the day we went C hicago - T u ls a -P r o v in c e , the F rid ay before the ele ctio n . A fter T u lsa, I sw itched o v er and rode on the p r e s s plane. I'm a fo r m e r new spaper m an and I wanted to se e so m e of the guys. A s we took off, Z e ig le r 's staff w as turning out his [the P r e s id e n t's ] im prom ptu r em a rk s that he had ju st m ade in T u lsa . They w ere running about fifteen m in u tes b e hind h im and then when they w ere fin ish ed th ey w ere p a sse d down the jplane. C u r tis: D o es the P r e sid e n t g e n e ra lly have an o c ca sio n to speak and then find a pu rp ose, or does he have a d e sir e to persuad e on s o m e 1 p articu lar is s u e and then look for an o c c a sio n to p ersu a d e? M cD onald: I g u e ss it happens both w ays b ecau se the P re sid e n t n ever has any problem finding fo ru m s. C u r tis: So then he probably s e le c t s the forum that is the m o st appropriate for that is s u e on which he w ish e s to sp eak ? M cD onald: T h at’s right. But that's kind of an o ld -fa sh ion ed idea: that you unveil your health p rogram at a d o cto r's m eetin g or som ething. T h is, right h ere is the g r e a te st forum in the country: the White H ouse. Nothing can top him doing it right h e r e on h is own hom e ground. In fact, when he g o es out of town, the co v era g e drops because all of the g rea t r e p o r te r s are h ere in W ashington. Som e of them don't i go when he tr a v e ls and the r ep o r te r s in C hicago a r e ju st not that sharp. They don't get the sig n ifica n ce of what it is the P r e sid e n t is sayin g and how that is d ifferen t from what he has said in the past. C u r tis: When you are working on an a d d ress fo r the P r e sid e n t, do you w rite a whole page at a tim e and then rew rite it, or do you do a sen ten ce or two and then rew rite that, or do you do a whole sp eech and then rew rite the whole sp e e c h ? M cDonald: I do the whole thing. I don't sta r t to w rite it un l e s s 1 have in m y m ind a pretty good id ea of the con stru ction . I i C urtis: Do you e v e r read out loud the things you w rite to find o u t if they have the o r a l fla v o r? M cD onald: O cca sio n a lly , y e s. You can find tongue tw iste r s and things that ju st don't sound right. C urtis: Do you know if the P r e sid e n t e v er r e h e a r s e s sp e e c h e s before he d e liv e r s th em ? M cD onald: W ell, he wouldn't r e h e a r se h is im prom ptu sp ee ch es i which a re m o st of them . I'm sure that before he goes before C o n g ress or the State of the Union that he has gone o v e r it. j i C u r tis: D oes the drafting p r o c e s s change as the im portance of I i i the o c c a sio n changes ? That i s , would his in volvem en t in the sp eech preparation go up as the im p ortan ce of the o c c a sio n in c r e a s e s ? M cD onald: Y es. C urtis: And v ic e - v e r s a ? M cDonald: R eferrin g back to the accep tan ce a d d re ss ? C u r tis: Y es. M cD onald: Su re. I t’s 100 p ercen t "Nixonian" p ro se. C u r tis: D oes the P r e sid e n t have any way of trad em ark in g sp e e c h e s as h is ow n? F or in sta n ce, if we didn't know who d e liv e re d i the sp ee ch , could we d istin g u ish it from a C hurchill sp ee ch or a R o o se v e lt sp ee ch in any w ay? A re there any p e c u lia r , unique things |about a "Nixon" sp e e c h ? 1 M cDonald: Y e s, I’m su re th ere a r e , but I d on ’t know quite how j I to d e sc r ib e them . C u r tis: There is nothing unique in sty le that would tend to se t it apart? McDonald: W ell, there is som ething unique, but it is s o m e thing I don't think 1 could identify. I think I can reco g n ize "Nixonian" p h rases and 1 can w rite them p assab ly w ell. C u r tis: Do you e v er engage in other sp e e c h -r e la te d a c tiv itie s with the P re sid e n t, like d e liv e r y , use of v o ice, g e stu r e s , th e se so r ts of things ? M cD onald: No. C u r tis: We should a ss u m e , then, that that's ju st not part of your r e sp o n sib ility ? L M cD onald: W ell, I'm sure if I had su g g estio n s on it, but he has ju st n ever ask ed m e to help him out. I am sure Ray [P r ic e ] probably I lhas d is c u s s e d this with him over the y e a r s , and oth ers in the White l ' i 1 H ou se, too. C u r tis: 1 would lik e to have your opinion on what som e of m y j 'colleagu es view as the d isrep u tab le a sp e c ts of sp eech w ritin g. E s s e n tia lly , what m o st of them ob ject to about sp eech w ritin g is that it c la im s its leg itim a cy on the platform of b u sy n e ss. The P re sid e n t is ju st too busy to have tim e to do all this h im se lf. Do you think that is ;a leg itim a te p latform ? i M cDonald: Y es. I think it would be im p o ssib le for a P re sid e n t in m odern day A m e rica to w rite a ll of the m a te r ia l that he is r e sp o n sib le for. C u r tis: A re th ere things m o re im portant than m er e sp eak ing? McDonald: Y es. I m ean , the producing of th e se things in words eith er to be read or heard, it's ju st the la st step in a long p ro- i ' j c e s s . j 1 i i l | C urtis: Another objection so m e have is that b eca u se of the in - : I ! fluence of sp e e c h w r ite r s that som ehow what the P r e sid e n t sa y s is not j 1 i rea lly h is. M cD onald: That m ight be true of so m e people but it is not true with Nixon. B eca u se of his p erson a l in volvem en t, he fights ev ery 1 word, e v er y p h rase, e v er y sen ten ce. In fact, Pat Buchanan, who has been with him probably the lo n g est, has told the story of how once the P re sid e n t took a s ix page draft and by the tim e he w as through fiddling with it, he had elim in ated ev ery word of this o rig in a l draft. | C u r tis: D oes the word "ghostw riter" to you have a pejorative ; tone to it ? i McDonald: I think the word "ghost" is kind of an o ld -fash ion ed term . You are one of P r e sid e n t N ixon's w r ite r s or you are one of Senator M u sk ie's w r ite r s. I don't e v er h ear the word "ghostw riter" any m o re . 1 haven't run a c r o s s that te r m in a long tim e . , C urtis: How m uch borrow ing fro m a w riter is e th ic a l? When, i if e v e r , would borrow ing by a sp eak er from a sp ee ch w r ite r becom e u n eth ical? In other w ord s, if you w ere to draft a sp eech from sta rt i ' " 3 IIP 1 i |to fin ish and he went and d e liv e re d it, would that be u n eth ical? M cD onald: No. If it fully reflec ted his v iew s, I think he would be p erfectly within his right to d eliv er it, even though he did not change I a sin g le w ord, b ecau se th ese w ords have no m eaning until he r a tifies | th em by d e liv e ry . C urtis: So it's the d eliv ery p r o c e ss then that r a tifies and puts i 5 I h is stam p of approval on it? Me Donald: That's right. I think the people who have th e se ob - jectio n s think of w riting not as being the craft that it is . They m ust be 1 I thinking of m ore fully 100 percen t c r e a tiv e w riting. W riting is rea lly a c ra ft and if I can develop a talen t to produce the w ords that the P r e s ident w ants, the idea that he wants r e fle c te d , or id ea s that I've com e to know b ecau se I've heard him talk about them , I've read what he has w ritten about it h im se lf, and so forth, it's m ore of a m ech an ical fu n c tion . It's lik e arranging m u sic . I could be a great c o m p o se r and think iup all the great th e m es and songs in an op era book and if I couldn't jarrange th em , I would turn that over to a cra ftsm a n , w hich m any i i great c o m p o s e r s , as you know, did. He would take that and then o r c h e stra te it for the w hole o r c h e str a . I could w rite for Ted Kennedy. I know K ennedy's lin e, I know h is sty le , som ew hat. Anyhow, I'm su re that I could join h is staff and be of help to him the fir s t day and be I m ore valuable e v er y day that went along as I learn ed m ore and m ore about how he liked to say things. . 319 ’ C u r tis: This w riting would be c o m p letely apart from your own p o litica l view s ? M cD onald: That's right. C u rtis: I can't understand how your own p olitical view s would not enter in. Don't you e v e r d is c u ss id ea s with the P r e sid e n t? M cD onald: Y es. I'm not sayin g I would do it, but I am saying that I am tech n ically capable of doing it. C u r tis: Do you think it would ev er be a c a d e m ic a lly ju stifiab le to offer a c o u r se in sp eech w ritin g ? McDonald: 1 think people could lea rn c er ta in rudim entary i ■ th in gs, but you couldn't rea lly begin to learn until you w rote for a person . ' C u r tis: 1 suppose one of the em p h a ses in the c o u r se would be, as you su g g ested , to d ivorce oneBelf from his own p olitical view s. M cD onald: That's right. But to think that a p r o fessio n a l 1 sp eech w riter would be only w riting his own v iew s is stupid. C u r tis: W ere you at all involved in sp eech w ritin g before you iwrote for the P r e sid e n t? M cDonald: I w rote for the R epublican N ational C om m ittee in the '60 cam paign for Thurston M orton, the chairm an . I was h is ;sp ee ch w r ite r. Then I have w ritten corp orate sp e e c h e s and so forth. | T h ere's a good exa m p le, now. I ’ve done a lot of fr e e -la n c e sp e e c h - I | [writing, o n e -sh o t things for people, and 1 think there is w here you rea lly s e e this "craft" I'm talking about. My ob jective in being a f r e e lan ce w riter is to m ake m oney, not to prom ote any c a u se or p ose any ca u se. It is to ach ieve m on ey-m ak in g a ssig n m e n ts. When I m ee t with m y c lien t, I have to d ecip h er what it is he is trying to say and then do it for him . In this b u sin e ss , you have to be a good tra n scen d en ta list. C urtis: And it wouldn't bother you at a ll, the d egree of your ! i i d isa g re em e n t ? M cD onald: No. O b viou sly, you seld o m would. I'm actually speaking m o re of n eutral things like b u sin ess e x e c u tiv e s who don't i have a w r ite r and they have to m ake a sp ee ch and they don't know how to go about it and so forth. i t C u r tis: A re th ere so m e is s u e s on which you would not w r ite ? \ M cD onald: Y es. I think th ere a re. | C u r tis: Have you had any fo rm a l sp ee ch training ? M cD onald: N o. C u r tis: Do you think the fact that m o st sp e e c h w r ite r s are jo u r n a lists, as opposed to sp eech com m u nication p eop le, is an in d ict- 'm ent on the sp ee ch fie ld ? I McDonald: I think i t ’s not only the jo u rn a lism but it's the fact n ew spap er m en get involved in the know ledgeable le v e l, the is s u e s of the day, through th eir reporting. It's not only th eir ability to w rite w ord s, but i t ’s th eir know ledge of the i s s u e s , sh ades of opinion, and stren gth s and w e a k n e sse s of the thin gs. Now, w hether you and your a s s o c ia te s get into that on a d a y -to -d a y b a sis lik e a new spaperm an d o e s, 1 question. That's probably why m o re of you a re not s p e e c h - ; w r ite r s. C urtis; Is th ere anything 1 have m is s e d about the nature of what you do that you think I ought to know to provide a c o m p lete , a ccu - l Irate and fair p ictu re? i M cD onald: Som e people have a fla ir for it and som e people don't, and that fla ir cannot be taught. C u r tis: How do we k eep those who don't have the flair out of sp eech w ritin g ? M cDonald: They keep th e m se lv e s out of it. They ju st n ever get into it, or if they get into it, they don't last. b i b l i o g r a p h y 322 BIBLIOGRAPHY P e r io d ic a ls "The Abortion Issu e." T im e , May 22, 1972, p. 23. A lsop , Stew art. "Nixon on N ix o n ." The Saturday Evening P o s t , July 12, 1958, pp. 2 6 -2 8 , 54, 58, 60, 62, 66, 70, 72. i "Apology to M r. H oover." H a r p e r 's , January, 1940, p. 186. j I A sh u rst, H enry. "Senator A sh u rst on Ghost W riters." Current H is - I tory and F o r u m , August; 1939, pp. 3 9-40. ! B ark er, Thoburn V. "Lincoln: R h eto rica l Copycat ?" T oday's S p e e c h , XV, No. 1 (February, 1967), 2 9 -3 0 . B art, P e te r . "The Busy G hosts." Today's S p ee c h , XII, No. 1 (F e b ruary, 1964), 21, 33. B a sk e r v ille , B arnet. "The New Nixon." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech , LIU (F eb ru ary, 1957), 3 8 -4 3 . iB eatty, J e ro m e. "Trade W inds." Saturday R eview , Septem ber 14, 1968, p. 21. B eh l, W illiam A. "Theodore R o o se v e lt's P r in c ip le s of Speech P r e p a ration and D eliv ery ." Speech M onographs, XII (R e se a rc h A n nual, 1945), 112-122. B enjam in, Roy A. "Ghost G oes to C o lleg e." A m erica n M e r c u r y , June, 1939, pp. 156-160. B enson, T hom as. "C onversation With a Ghost." Today's Sp eech , XVI, No. 4 (N ovem ber, 1968), 7 1 -8 1 . B onafede, D om . " R ep o rt/S p eech w riters P lay Strategic R ole in C on veyin g, Shaping N ixon's P o lic ie s ." National Journal, February ! 19, 1972, pp. 311 -319. 323 B orm ann, E rn est G. "Ethics of G hostw ritten S p eech es." Q uarterly Journal of Speech. XLVII, No. 3 (O cto b er, 1961), 262-267. __________ . "G hostwriting A g e n c ies." T od ay’s Speech, IV (Septem ber, 1956), 2 0 -3 0 . "G hostwriting and the R h etorical C ritic." Quarter ly J o u r nal of Speech, XLVI (O ctober, I960), 2 8 4 -2 8 8 . ~ I i __________. "G hostwritten S p e e c h e s --A R eply." Q uarterly Journal of S p ee c h , XLVII, No. 4 (D ecem b er, 1961), 2 2 0 -2 2 1 . B o stro m , R obert N. " 'I Give You a M an1- - K ennedy1 s Speech for ' A dlai Stevenson." Speech M onographs, XXXV, No. 2 (Ju n e, 1968), 129-136. j Brandenburg, E rn est. "The P rep aration of F ranklin D. R o o sev e lt's S p eech es." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech , XXXV (A pril, 1949), , 2 1 4 -2 2 1 . " | l B rem b eck , Cole S. "Harry Trum an at the W histle Stops." Q uarterly , Journal of S p eech, XXXVIII (F eb ru ary, 1952), 4 2 -5 0 . j [ Brennan, E llen E. "L ast-M inute Swing in New York City P resid en tia l! Vote." Public Opinion Q u a rterly , XII (Su m m er, 1949), 285- 298. B ridgm an, Betty. "A Lady P o litic a l G host Speaks Up." The Pen W oman, M ay, 1969, p. 51. B rig a n ce, W. Norwood. "G hostwriting B efore Franklin D. R o o sev e lt and the Radio." Today's Sp eech, IV (Sep tem b er, 1956), 10-12. "Building a 'White H o u se 1 on Capitol H ill." U .S . N ew s fa World R e p o r t, F eb ru ary 13, 1959, pp. 6 4 -6 6 . " B u sin essm en Who Do . . . . " N ew sw eek , N ovem ber 23, 1959, pp. 9 4 -9 8 . " C a esa r's Ghost: F ro m Pharaoh to F ord , A nonym ous W riters Have Penned for the G reat." L itera ry D ig e st, July 10, 1937, pp. 3 7 -3 8 . ' C lapper, Raym ond. "Is G host W riting D ish o n e st? " F oru m and C e n tu ry, F eb ru a ry , 1939, pp. 67-69. 325 , I "A C lo se r Look at K ennedy." N e w sw ee k . July 4, I960, p. 23. j C o rey , H erb ert. "Ghosts That Haunt the H ustings." N ation's B u s i n e s s . A ugust, 1948, pp. 4 3 -4 5 , 78. "A C ourse in G hostw riting." The New Y orker, F eb ru ary 23, 1952, j p. 23. j j C ow ley, M alcolm . "The Haunted H ouse." The New R ep u b lic, A pril j 12, 1943, pp. 4 8 1 -4 8 2 . i C ro w ell, Laura. "The Building of the 'Four F r e e d o m s' Speech." j Sp eech M onographs, XXII, No. 5 (N ovem b er, 1955), 2 6 6 -2 8 3 . j C u rtis, A lan M. "G hostwriting: L et's A cknow ledge Change." M o m en ts in C ontem porary R h e to r ic , I (Sum m er, 1972), 18-21. ] D art, R ufus. "The V en triloq u ists of W ashington." S crib n er's M aga zin e , N ovem b er, 1932, pp. 268-274 . Day, D ennis G. "The E th ics of D em o cra tic D ebate." C entral States Sp eech Jou rn al, XVII (F eb ru ary, 1966), 5-14. "D em ocrat T r ie s for Lead in Space S tatesm an sh ip ." B u sin e ss W eek, January 18, 1958, pp. 2 9 -3 0 . D evlin , H arry. "So What's Wrong With G h osts?" C o llie r 's , January 21, 1950. p. 74. j D ick en s, M ilton, and Schw artz, Ruth E. "Oral A rgum ent B efore the S u prem e Court: M arsh all vs. D avis in the School S egregation C a s e s ." Q uarterly Journal of S p ee c h , LVU, No. 1 (F eb ru ary, 1971), 3 -4 2 . ; D ig g s, B. J. " P er su a sio n and E th ics." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech , L (D ecem b er, 1964), 359-373. D iogen es (pseud.). "Ghost W riting." L itera ry D ig e s t, June 9, 1934. p. 16. Donohue, J a m e s F. "How to U se the Fourth P e r so n Singular." Public R elation s J o u rn a l, LI (M arch, 1970), 2 4 -2 5 . t jEk, R ichard A. "Working With a G host." Today's Speech, XV, No. 2 ] (A p ril, 1967), 2 3 -2 5 . 326 I F a r r a r , L ars ton D. ’’L ive G hosts in W ashington." A m erica n M ercu ry LXXXm (N ovem ber. 1956), 109*119. F a u le s , Don F. , and B ak er, Eldon. "C om m unication and the C am paign M anager." T oday's S p ee c h , XIII, No, 2 (A pril, 1965), 30-39. "A Fine Hand." T im e , June 20, I960, p. 11. F ran klin , Jay [John F. C arter]. "Inside Strategy of the Cam paign." L ife, N ovem b er 15, 1948, p. 48. t i F r e d e r ic k , J, G eorge. "G hostwriting: A L egitim ate P r o fe ssio n a l S e r v ic e ." F oru m and C en tu ry, F eb ru ary, 1939, pp. 69-71. F r e s h le y , Dwight L. "G ubernatorial G host W riters." Southern Speech Journal, XXXI, No. 1 (W inter, 1965), 95-1 0 5 . F u e s s , Claude M. "Ghosts in the White H ouse." A m erica n H er ita g e , X (D e ce m b e r, 1958), 4 5 -4 7 , 9 7 -9 9 . ! | G arnett, A. C am pbell. "Good R eason s in E thics: A R ev ised C on cep- i tion of Natural Law." M ind, LXIX (July, i9 6 0 ), 232-242. "The G host at Graduation." T im e. M arch 30, 1962, pp. 56, 58. I j "A G host N ever T e lls." C h ristian S cien ce M on itor, F eb ru ary 24, | 1945, pp. 4 -5 . ; "The G host Owns the C opyright." P u b lish er 's W eek ly, N ovem ber 13, 1937, p. 1919. "The G hosts." T im e , N ovem ber 9, 1953, pp. 104, 106. "Ghosts B ew are." The R e p o r te r , M arch 17, i9 6 0 , p. 4. "The G host Walk." N e w sw e e k , O ctober 13, 1958, p. 78. " G h ostw riters." B u sin e ss W eek , O ctober 23, 1954, p. 176. "G hostw riters Give B o s s the Word." B u sin e ss W eek, January 21, 1967, pp. 72-74. "Ghost W riting." The Bookm an, O ctob er, 1927, pp. 185-187. 327 1 "G hostwriting Bureau." C urrent H istory and F oru m , M ay, 1941, pp. 4 9 -5 0 . I G olden, J a m es L. "John F . Kennedy and the 'G h o sts.'" Q uarterly Journal of Sp eech, L1I, No. 4 (D ecem b er, 1966), 348-357. Goldm an, E r ic . "Party of One." H oliday, A p ril, 1962, pp. 11, 14, 16, 18-19. G ra v lee, G. Jack. "Franklin D. R o o se v e lt's Speech P rep aration D u r ing H is F ir s t National Cam paign." Speech M onographs, XXXI 1 (N ovem b er, 1964), 437-4 60. "Guiding the G host." N ew sw eek , F eb ru ary 4, 1952, p. 71. 1 G underson, R ob ert G. " P o litica l P h r a se m a k e r s in P e r sp e c tiv e ." Southern Speech Journal, XXVI, No. 1 (F a ll, i960), 2 2 -2 6 . H all, R obert N. "Lyndon Johnson's Speech P rep aration ." Q uarterly I Journal of S p eech, LI (A pril, 1965), 168-176, Hartt, R ollin L. "G hostw riting." The B ook m an , M arch, 1933, pp. 2 2 2 -2 2 6 . iHeinen, R. W. "G hostwriting in D epartm en ts of the F ed er a l G overn m ent." C entral States Speech J o u rn a l, VII, No. 2 (Spring, 1956), 10-12. H illbrun er, Anthony. "R hetoric and P o litic s: The Making of the P r e s ident, I960." W estern S p eech , XXIX, No. 2 (Spring, 1965), 91-1 0 2 . "How to Get a G host to Do Vour W riting. " Good H ou sek eep in g, N o v e m b er , 1957, p. 51. H uebner, Lee W. "The D eb ater, the S p eech w riter and the C hallenge of P ublic P e r su a sio n ." Journal of the A m erican F o r e n sic A s s o c ia tio n . VII, No. 1 (W inter, 1970), 1-14. J e n se n , J. Vernon. "An A n a ly sis of R ecen t L iteratu re on T eaching E th ics in Public A d d ress." Speech T e a c h e r , VIII (Sep tem b er, 1959), 2 19-2 28. Johnson, S en eca. "In D efen se of G host W riting." H a r p e r 's . O ctob er, 1939, pp. 536-543. i 328" "The Joys and Sorrow s of the 'Ghost W r ite r .1 " L itera ry D ig e s t, M arch 16, 1929, p. 65. K irchw ey, F red a. "G hosts." The Nation, F eb ru ary 20, 1929, p. 231. L evy, Alan. "Richard N ixon's B ig g est C r is is ." R edbook, July, 1962, p. 105. Lynch, D aniel. "C on fession s of a S p eech w riter." Dun's R e v ie w , N o vem b er, 1965, pp. 4 2 -4 3 , 9 7 -9 8 . L yon s, E ugene. "The R evolt of the G hosts." A m erican M ercu ry, LI, No. 203 (August, 1940), 344-350. May, E r n e st R. "G hostwriting and H istory." A m erica n Scholar, XXII (1953), 4 5 9 -4 6 5 . j I __________ . "W hodunit?" The New R ep u b lic, CXXXVI (A pril 22, 1957),! 12-16. ! j Me Bath, J a m es H. , and F is h e r , W alter R. " P ersu a sio n in P r e s id e n - j tial C am paign C om m unication." Q uarterly Journal of Speech, L V ( F eb ru a ry, 1969), 17-25. M cK ean, Dayton D. "N otes on W oodrow W ilson's S p eech es." Q uar ter ly Journal of S p eech , XVI (A p ril, 1930), 176-184. M etcalf, C. W. "Ghost W riter D efends the P r o fe ssio n ." C h ristian | S cien ce M on itor, July 29, 1944, p. 11. M iller , W illiam L. "Ted S oren son of N ebraska." The R e p o r te r , i F eb ru ary 13, 1964, pp. 2 4 -2 7 . "Mr. Sm ith Went to W ashington." Saturday R e v ie w , January 29, 1955, p. 22. "Nixon at the Brink O ver Viet Nam ." T im e, May 22, 1972, pp. 11-14. "Nixon v. the V u ltu res." T im e, A p ril 17, 1972, p. 99. O liv e r , R ob ert. "Syngman Rhee: A C ase Study in T ransnational O ra tory." Q uarterly Journal o f S p eech , XLVIII, No. 2 (A pril, 1962), 115-127. "Opening of the Showdown S essio n ." T im e . January 24, 1972, pp. O sborn, G eorge C. "Woodrow W ilson as a Speaker." Southern Speech J o u rn a l, XXII (W inter, 1956). 61-72. Padrow , Ben, and R ich a rd s, B ruce. "Richard Nixon . . . H is Speech' P reparation ." Today's S p eech . VII, No. 4 (N ovem b er, 1959), : 11 - 12. | " P erson al B u sin e ss." B u sin e ss W eek, O ctober 23, 1954, p. 176. i 1 ! P o w ell, J a m es G. "R eactions to John F. K ennedy's D eliv ery Skills During the I960 Cam paign." W estern S p eech , XXXII (W inter, s 1968), 5 9-6 8. ! i "Pranks of the L itera ry 'G host.'" L itera ry D ig e s t, July 30, 1927, j p. 27. Randolph, Jennin gs. "Harry S. Trum an." Q uarterly Journal of S p ee c h , XXXIV (O ctober, 1948), 300-302. " T ru m an --A Winning Speaker." Qua r te rly Journal of S p eech , XXXIV (D ecem b er, 1948), 4 2 1 -4 2 4 . R a tn er, V ictor M. "Who Should Do the W riting?" H a r p e r 's. D e c e m b e r , 1952, p. 91. Ray, R obert. "G hostwriting in P re sid e n tia l C am paigns." Today's S p eech , IV (Septem ber, 1956), 13-15. "G hostwriting in P r e sid e n tia l C am paigns." C entral States Speech J o u rn a l. VIII, No. 1 (F a ll, 1956), 8-11. "Rhetoric and the C am paign of 1956." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech , XLUI, No. 1 (F eb ru ary, 1957), 2 9 -5 4 . R o b erts, C h a rles. "A P re sid e n tia l G host Story." N e w sw ee k , January 11, 1971, pp. 2 1 -2 2 . R ogge, Edward. "Evaluating the E th ics of a Speaker in a D em ocracy ." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech . XLV (D ecem b er, 1959), 4 1 9 -4 2 5 . j __________ . "The M iracle of '4 8 -- T w enty-Six Y ears in F orm in g." I Southern Speech J ou rn al, XXV (Su m m er, I960), 2 6 4 -2 7 2 . 330 R o s s , C h arles G. "How Trum an Did It." C o llie r 's , D ecem b er 2 5, 1948, p. 88. Schiffm an, Joseph. "O bservations on R o o se v e lt's L iterary Style." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech , XXXV {A pril, 1949), 2 2 2 -2 2 6 . S c h lo ss, E velyn. "L et's Give Up Ghost W riting." C hristian Science M on itor, July 8, 1944, p. 4. Shannon, W illiam V. "What Was That N am e A gain?" T oday's Speech, VLI, No. 4 (N ovem ber, 1959), 13-14. Sisk , John P. "L iterary G hosts." The C om m on w eal, D ecem b er 9, I960, pp. 274-276 . Sm ith, Donald K. "The S p eech -w ritin g T eam in a State P o litica l Cam paign." T oday's S p eech , IV, No. 3 (Septem ber, 1956), 16-19. "G hostwritten S p eech es." Q uarterly Journal of Speech, XLVII, No. 4 (D ecem b er, 1961), 216-220. "The Speech W riters." V ogu e, Septem ber 15, I960, pp. 158-159. S ta rrett, Vincent. "Trade W inds." Saturday R eview , August 19, 1944, p. 18. S telzn er, H erm ann G. "Speech C r itic is m by J ou rn alists." Southern Speech J ou rn al, XXVIII, No. 1 (F a ll, 1962), 17-26. Stern, Edith M. "The C a sh -a n d -N o -C re d it B u sin e ss." Saturday R e v ie w , O ctober 26, 1940, pp. 11-12, S teven s, L ena M. "L et's Give Up G host W riting." C h ristian S cien ce M on itor, August 5, 1944, p. 14. Strout, R ichard L. "B efore R adio, TV, and Ghost W riters." C h r is tian S cien ce M on itor, Septem ber 22, I960, P a cific E dition, E d itorial Section (unpaged). "The Talk of the Town." The New Y o rk er, F eb ru ary 23, 1952, p. 23. i 331n i T arb ell, Ida M. r,A Talk With the P r e sid e n t of the United S ta te s .” C o llie r 's , O ctober 28, 1916, pp. 6 4 -6 6 , 68. “ — i "The Trouble With G hosts." T im e . D ecem b er 5, 1949, p. 25. Van de W ater, F r e d e r ic F. "The Ghost W riters." S crib n er's M aga zin e, M arch, 1929, pp* 327-332. "The V ice P resid en cy: R ichard Nixon, B r id g eb u ild e r." T im e , Janu ary 18, 1954, pp. 2 5 -2 9 . W allace, Karl R. "An E th ical B a sis of C om m unication." Speech T e a c h e r , IV (January, 1955), 1-9- * "When Johnson P la n s a Speech." U .S . News World R e p o r t, F eb ru - ; ary 3, 1964, p. 33. I W hite, Eugene E. "The State of the Union M e ssa g e s of the P r e s i dents." Q uarterly Journal of S p ee c h , LIV (F eb ru ary, 1968), 72 -7 9 . j __________, and H en d erlid er, C lair R. "What H arry S. Trum an Told Usj About H is Speaking." Q uarterly Journal of S p ee c h . XL (F eb - i ruary, 1954), 3 7 -4 1 . "Who's W riting L B J ’s S p e e c h e s? " U .S . N ew s fc World R eport, June 28, 1965, p. 57. 1 I W iem an, Henry N. , and W alter, O tis M. "Toward an A n a ly sis of E th ics for R h etoric." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech , XLUI (O ctober, 1957), 2 2 6 -2 7 0 . IW indes, R u ss e ll, Jr. "A Study of E ffective and In effective P r e s id e n tial Cam paign Speaking." Speech M onographs, XXVIII, No. 1 i (M arch, 1961), 3 9 -4 9 . j W oods, R o se M ary. "N ixon's My B o ss." Saturday E vening P o s t , D ecem b er 28, 1957, pp. 20, 77-78. "W ord-G am e P lan." T im e, A pril 24, 1972, p. 15. L 332“^ i Books A llen , Gary. R ichard Nixon: The Man Behind the M ask. Boston: W estern Islan d s, 1971. A n drew s, P hillip. This Man N ixon. Philadelphia: W inston, 1952. A u er, J. Jeffery. The R h etoric of Our T im e s . New York: A ppleton- C entury-C rofts , 1969. B o o rstein , D aniel J. The Im a g e . New York: A theneum , 1962. j i B raden, Waldo, and G ehring, M ary. Speech P r a c tic e s : A R eso u rce Book for the Student of Public A d d r e s s . New York: H arper and Row, 1958. B rig a n ce, W illiam N ., ed. A H istory and C r itic is m of A m erica n P u b -j lie A d d r e s s . 2 v o ls. New York: M cG raw -H ill Book Company,j I n c . , 1943. j I C arter, John F ranklin. P ow er and P e r s u a s io n . New York: The D oell Co. , I960. C o stello , W illiam . The F acta About Nixon. New York: Viking P r e s s , I960. D eT oled ano, Ralph. N ixon. New York: H olt, R inehart & W inston, 1956. 1 ! __________. One Man Alone: R ichard N ixon. New York: Funk & Wag - n a ils , 1969. | D evlin , L. P atrick . "G hostwriting. " In C ontem porary P o litic a l j Sp eak ing. B elm on t, C alifornia: W adsworth P ublishing Co. , : Inc. , 1971. I D rury, A llen . C ourage and H esitation: The Nixon A d m in istration. Garden City: D oubleday, 1971. E va n s, Row land, and Novak, R obert D, Nixon in the White H ouse: The F ru stra tio n of P o w e r . New York: Random H ou se, 1971. [ F ag en , R ichard P . P o litic s and C om m u n ication . Boston: L ittle, Brow n & Co. , 1966. i I _______________________ _____________________ 333~1 F a r r a r , L arston D. W ashington Lowdown. New York: New A m erican L ib rary, 1956. G ilm an, B radley. R o o sev e lt, the Happy W arrior. Boston: L ittle, Brown 8c Co. , 1921. H a r r is, M ark. The L a st Days of R ichard Nixon. New York: M ac m illa n , 1964. H enry, John M. , ed. The A r tic u la te s. Indianapolis: The B obbs- M e r r ill Co. , Inc. , 1957. J Hochm uth, M a rie, ed. H istory and C r itic is m of A m erican Public A d d r e s s . New York: L ongm ans, G reen & c Co. , 1955. H ockett, H om er C arey. The C ritica l M ethod in H isto r ic a l R e se a rc h and W riting. New York: The M acm illan Co. , 1955. j H ouston, David F . E ight Y ears With W ilson 's C abinet, 1 913 -1 9 2 0 . j G arden City: D oubleday, 1926. j Jebb, R ichard C. The Attic O rators from Antiphon to I s a e o s . L o n don: M acm illan & Co. , 1893. i Jen son , J. Vernon. P e r sp e c tiv e s on O ral C om m u nication. Boston: H olbrook P r e s s , Inc. , 1970. | K eogh, J a m e s . This la N ixon. Bloom ington: Indiana U n iv ersity j P r e s s , 1962. L incoln, E velyn. My T w elve Y ears With John F. K ennedy. New York David M cKay Co. , 1965. M a zlish , B ru ce. In Search of Nixon. New York: B a sic B ook s, 1972. M azo, E a r l, and H e s s , Stephen. Nixon: A P o litica l P o r tr a it. New York: H arper and Row , 1968. M cG in n iss, Joe. The Sellin g of the P r e s id e n t. New York: Trident P r e s s , 1969. M ich elson , C h a rles. The G host T alk s. New York: G. P . P utnam 's I Son s, 1944. Mo le y , Raym ond. A fter Seven Y ears. N ew York: H arper and Row, 1939 334 i I M ooney, Booth. The Lyndon Johnson S to ry . New York: F a r r a r , Straus & Cudahy, 1964. M organ, J a m es. Our P r e sid e n ts. New York: M acm illan, 1924. N ich ols, M arie H. "Ghostwriting: Im p lication s for Public A d d ress." R h etoric and C r itic ism . Baton Rouge: Louisana State U n i v e r sity P r e s s , 1967. N ilson, T hom as R. E thics of Speech C om m u nication. Indianapolis: B o b b s-M e r r ill Co. , Inc. , 1966. Nixon, R ichard M. Six C r is e s . G arden City: Doubleday, 1962. J I O liver, R ob ert T. "The End of an Era: Woodrow W ilson." H istory o fj Public Speaking in A m e rica . Boston: Allyn 8t Bacon, Inc. , 1966. O sborne, John. The Nixon W atch. New York: L iverigh t, 1970. J __________. The Second T erm of the Nixon W atch. New York: L iv e - j right, 1971. P e te r so n , H ouston, ed. A T rea su ry of the W orld's G reat S p e e c h e s. N ew York: Sim on & S ch u ster, 1965. P ols b y , N elso n W. The C itize n 's Choice: Humphrey or N ixon. W ashington: Public A ffairs P r e s s , 1968. R eedy, G eorg e. The Twilight of the P re sid e n c y . New York: W orld P ub lish in g Co. , 1970. R eid, L oren. A m erica n Public A d d r e s s . Columbia: U n iv e r sity of M isso u r i P r e s s , 1961. R osenm an, Sam u el I. Working With R o o s e v e lt. New York: H arp er, 1952. Safire, W illiam . The New Language of P o litic s. New York: C o llie r B o o k s, 1972. Salinger, P ie r r e . With K ennedy. G arden City: Doubleday, 1966. i Sc&mmon, R ichard M. , and W attenberg, Ben J. The R eal M a jority. N ew York: C ow ard-M cC ann, 1970. ; 335 ~ i I Schle sin g e r , Arthur M. , J r. A Thousand D a y s. Boston: Houghton M ifflin Co. , 1965. Scott, R ob ert L. "Ethical G u id elin es." The S p eak er's R eader: C on c ep ts in C om m u n ication . P alo A lto, C alifornia: Scott, F o r e sm a n & Co. , 1969. S eym our, C h a rle s, ed. The Intim ate P ap ers of C olonel H o u se . Boston: Houghton M ifflin , 1926. i Shadegg, Stephen C. How to Win an E lection . New York: T aplinger, 1964. Sherw ood, R obert E. R o o s e v e lt and Hopkins: An Intim ate H isto ry . I N ew York: H arper, 1948. | S id ey, Hugh. A V ery P e r so n a l P resid en cy : Lyndon Johnson in the White H o u se . New York: A theneum , 1968. __________ . John F . Kennedy, P r e s id e n t. New York: A theneum , 1964. Sm ith, Donald K. Man Speaking: A R h etoric of P ublic S p ee c h . New York: Dodd, M ead & C o. , 1969. j f I S o ren so n , T heodore C. D e cisio n -m a k in g in the White H o u se . New York: C olum bia U n iv e r sity P r e s s , 1963. I | K ennedy. New York: H arper and Row, 1965. __________. The Kennedy L e g a c y . N ew York: M acm illan , 1969. i Spalding, H enry D. The N ixon Nobody K now s. New York: J. David ' & Co. , 1972. T h ayer, W illiam M. F ro m L og-C ab in to White H ouse: The Life of J a m e s A. G arfield. B oston: J. H. E a r le , 1890. T hayer, W illiam R. Theodore R oosevelt: An Intim ate B iography. New York: G r o sse t & Dunlap, 1919. T h o n ssen , L e s te r , and B aird , A . C raig. "The G hostw riter: A Point of View." Speech C r it ic is m . New York: Ronald P r e s s Co. , 1 1970. 336 T oulm in, Stephen. R eason in E th ic s . C am bridge: Cam bridge U ni v e r sity P r e s s , I960. W atson, John S. , tran s. C ic e r o , M arcus T u lliu s. London: H. G. Bohn, 1855. Whalen, R ichard. Catch the F a llin g F la g . Boston: Houghton M ifflin, i 1972. J j __________ . The Nixon Vacuum. New York: Houghton M ifflin, 1972. j White, Theodore H. The Making of the P r e sid e n t, I960. New York: W ills, Gary. Nixon A g o n iste s. Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1970. W ise, Sidney, and S ch ier, R ichard F. The P re sid e n tia l O ffic e . New j York: C ro w ell, 1968. W itcover, J u le s. The R e su rr ec tio n of R ichard N ixon. New York: j Putnam , 1970. i N ew sp ap ers B ak er, R u ss e ll. "Tw elve Men C lo se to the Kennedy A dm inistration." New York T im es M a g a zin e, January 22, 1961, p. 6. I B end in er, R obert. "Ghosts Behind the S p eech m ak ers." New York j T im es M agazine, August 17, 1952, pp. 15, 36. " B rezh n ev Was a Silent W itness at K itchen D ebate." Los A n geles T im e s , May 22, 1972, P t. 1, pp. 1, 18. j C im o n s, M arlen e. "M arriages M ade in the White H ouse." Los A n g e le s T im e s , June 15, 1972, pp. 1, 16. D a llo s, R obert E. "T erm P aper S ales: F ighting the S ystem ." Los A n geles T im e s , January 19, 1972, pp. 1, 16. F o llia r d , Edward T. "Ghost W riting for P re sid e n ts." W ashington P o st, A p ril 9, 1972, p. 18. ‘ __________ . "On P r e sid e n ts and T h eir G hosts." L os A n geles T im e s , May 7, 1972, Sec. K, p. 7. 337 G illam , J e rr y . " A ssem b ly Oks Ban on Sale of T erm P a p e rs." Los A n geles T im e s , A pril 19, 1972, p. 21. G ilroy, H arry. "Survey of the Ghost W riters." New York T im es M a gazin e, M arch 27, 1949, pp. 20, 58-59. Honan, W illiam H. "The M en Behind N ixon's S p eech es." New York T im es M agazine, January 19, 1969, pp. 2 0 -2 1 , 63, 6 5 -6 7 , 73, 75. "Kennedy A im s for a High P la ce in United States H istory with Inaugu ral." New York T im e s , January 13, 1961, p. 2, K ilpatrick, C arroll. "Ghosts Don't Control J. F. K." D enver P o s t , June 28, 1962. L e w is, P e te r . "Ghost Town." New York T im es M a g a zin e. A pril 10, I960, pp. 39, 40, 42. O berd orfer, Don. "Vast G hostland of W ashington." New York T im es M a g a zin e, A pril 26, 1964, pp. 24, 9 6-98. P ett, Sam uel. " P rofile of a P re sid e n t." Salt Lake T rib un e, January 14, 1973, pp. A15, A16. S em p le, R obert B. "Speechm aker Nixon: The Men Behind Those W ords." New York T im es M a g a zin e, May 11, 1969, p. 23. W halen, R ichard J. "The D ow nfall of an A rrogant and Ignorant E lite." Los A n geles T im e s , May 13, 1973, S ec. VI, pp. 1, 7. P ublished L ette rs Abbott, Lym an. " R oo sevelt H ouse L e tte rs." M icro film le tte r from R o o sev e lt to Dr. Lym an Abbott, N ovem ber 8, 1901. B ra d lee, B enjam in C. L etter to J a m es L. G olden, W ashington, D. C. ^ S ep tem b er 30, 1966. In "John F . Kennedy and the G hosts." Q uarterly Journal of S p eech , VII ( D e c e m b e r , 1966), 3 4 8 -3 5 7 . Cannon, J. G. " R oosevelt H ouse L e tte r s." M icro film le tte r from R o o se v e lt to the H onorable J. G. Cannon, N ovem b er 16, 1901. 338 L odge, H enry Cabot. " R oosevelt H ouse L e tte rs." M icrofilm le tte r , R o o sev e lt to Lodge, M arch 19, 1903. P o st, R egis H. L etter to W illiam A. B eh l, Nantucket, M a ssa c h u se tts, A p ril 2, 1941. Cited in B eh l's a r tic le , "Theodore R o o sev e lt's P rin c ip les of Speech P rep aration and D eliv ery ." Speech M onographs, XU. (R esea rch Annual, 1945), 112-122, R eid, W hitelaw. "Library of C o n g ress L etters." M icrofilm le tte r , ( R eid to Theodore R o o sev e lt, July 14, 1904. j | __________ . M icrofilm le tte r , R o o se v e lt to the H onorable W hitelaw j R eid, N ovem ber 8, 1901, j Soren son , T heodore. L etter to J a m es L. G olden, New York, October] 17, 1966, Cited in G olden's a r tic le , "John F . Kennedy and the j G hosts." Q uarterly Journal of Sp eech , VII (D ecem b er, 1966), j 348-35 7. Stoddard, H enry L. L etter to W illiam A. B ehl, New York C ity, June 25, 1941. Cited in B eh l's a r tic le , "Theodore R o o se v e lt's P r in c ip le s of Speech P rep aration and D eliv ery ." Speech M on o -j g r a p h s, XII (R esea rch Annual, 1945), 112-122. Taft, W illiam H. "Library of C o n g re ss L e tte r s." M icrofilm letter from Taft to Theodore R o o sev e lt, M arch 11, 1918. S p eech es 1 M o rr is, R ichard B. "Alexander H am ilton and His M essa g e for Our | T im es." A d d ress given at the annual initiation and banquet of j Phi B eta Kappa, Alpha H awaii C hapter, P r in c e s s Kaiulani H otel, May 2, 1957. U n iv ersity of H aw aii O ccasion al P a p e rs, No. 6 5 , June, 1957, pp. 6-7. W ilson, W oodrow. "Speech to M em b ers of the National P r e s s Club, W ashington, M arch 20, 1914." New York T im e s , M arch 21, j 1914, pp. 1, 3 -4 . j i “319" Unpublished M aterials B au er, Otto F . "A Study of the P o litic a l Debate B etw een Dwight D. E isen h o w er and Adlai E. S teven son in the P re sid e n tia l C a m paign of 1956." Unpublished Ph. D. d isse r ta tio n , N orthw estern U n iv e r sity , 1959. I I Brandenburg, E rn est. "An A n a ly sis and C r itic is m of Franklin D. R o o s e v e lt's S p eech es on International A ffairs D eliv ered B e tw een Septem ber 3, 1939 and D ecem b er 7, 1941." Unpublished P h .D . d isse r ta tio n , State U n iv ersity of Iowa, 1948. C rip e, N ich olas M. "A C ritica l A n a ly sis and C om p arison of S e lec ted | 1932 P r e sid e n tia l Cam paign S p eech es of H erb ert Clark H oover i and F ran k lin Delano R o o sev elt." Unpublished P h .D . D is s e r t a - - tion, N orthw estern U n iv e r sity , 1953. j F le s e r , Arthur F. "The R hetoric of C alvin C oolidge." Unpublished P h .D . d isse r ta tio n , Indiana U n iv ersity , 1962. i i G ra v lee, G. Jack. "A R h etorical Study of Franklin Delano R o o se v e lt's 19^0 Cam paign." Unpublished P h .D . d isse r ta tio n , L ouisiana State U n iv ersity , 1963. i H all, R obert N. "A R h etorical A n a ly sis of S elected S p eech es of S ena- i tor Lyndon B. Johnson, 1955-1961." Unpublished P h .D . d i s se rta tio n , U n iv ersity of M ichigan, 1963. H ope, Ben W. "The R h etoric of D efen se: A Study of the T a ctics and 1 T echniques of R efutation in P r e sid e n t Franklin D. R o o se v e lt's j S p eech es in His Three C am paigns for R e -E le c tio n ." Unpub- ! lish e d Ph. D. d isse r ta tio n , Ohio State U n iv e r sity , I960. : Knepprath, H ubert E. "The E lem en ts of P e r su a sio n in the N ationally j B ro a d ca st S p eech es of E isen h o w er and S teven son During the 1956 P r e sid e n tia l Cam paign." Unpublished Ph. D. d isse r ta tio n , U n iv ersity of W isco n sin , 1962. P o lisk y , J ero m e B. "The K ennedy-N ixon D ebates: A Study in P o lit i ca l P er su a sio n ." Unpublished Ph. D. d isse r ta tio n , U n iv ersity of W iscon sin , 1965. P o w ell, J a m es G. "An A nalytical and C om parative Study of the P e r su a sio n of Kennedy and Nixon in the I960 Cam paign." Unpub lish e d Ph. D. d isse r ta tio n , U n iv ersity of W iscon sin , 1963. Rank, Vernon E. "Martin Van B uren's P olitical Speaking in His R ise to P o litica l Pow er." Unpublished P h .D . d isserta tio n , P en n sy l vania State U n iversity, 1961. i Ray, Robert F . "An Evaluation of the Public Speaking of Franklin D. R oosevelt and Thomas E. Dewey in the P resid en tia l Campaign of 1944." Unpublished Ph. D. d issertation , State U niversity of Iowa, 1947. ReH-Lug, w. C h arles. "A M ethodological Study of 'R hetorical P ostu- j la te s ,' Applied to a Content A n alysis of the 1944 Cam paign | Sp eeches of Dewey and R oosevelt." Unpublished P h .D . d isser -! tation, U niversity of Southern C alifornia, 1967. i Rogge, Edward A. "The Speechm aking of Harry S. Truman." Unpub- j lish ed Ph. D. d isserta tio n , U niversity of M isso u ri, 1958. R osenthal, Paul I. "Ethos in the P resid en tia l Cam paign of I960: A j Study of the B a sic P e r su a siv e P r o c e s s of the K ennedy-Nixon i T elev isio n D ebates." Unpublished P h .D . d isserta tio n , U ni v e r sity of C alifornia at Los A n geles, 1963. Sanderson, Sarah Elizabeth. "C ritical Study of the Nom inating i Sp eech es at the D em ocratic and Republican National Conven- | tions of I960." Unpublished P h .D . d isserta tio n , U niversity of Southern C alifornia, 1965. S illa r s, M alcolm O. "An A n alysis of Invention in the 1952 P re sid e n - ! tial Campaign A d d r esse s of Dwight D. E isenh ow er and Adlai E. Stevenson." Unpublished P h .D . d isserta tio n , State U niversity of Iowa, 1955. S ilv estri, Vito N. "John F . Kennedy: H is Speaking in the W isconsin j and W est V irginia P r im a r ie s , I960." Unpublished P h .D . d is - ' sertation , Indiana U n iversity, 1966. Stacy, B ill W. "The Cam paign Speaking of H arry S. Truman in the 1948 P resid en tia l E lection." Unpublished Ph. D. d isserta tio n , Southern Illin ois U n iversity, 1968. W ilson, John F . "An A n alysis of the C riticism of S elected Speeches by Franklin D. R oosevelt." Unpublished Ph. D. d isserta tio n , U ni v e rsity of W isconsin, 1955. ; ' ' “ 3 4i P er so n a l C orresp on d en ce Buchanan, P atrick J. The White H ouse, O ctober 16, 1972. Gavin, W illiam . W ashington, D. C. , N ovem ber 1, 1972. G ergen , David R. The White H ouse, M arch 30, 1972, A pril 14, 1972, A pril 24, 1972. H art, J effery . New H am p sh ire, O ctober 26, 1972. H uebner, Lee W. The White H ouse, O ctober 13, 1972. P r ic e , Raym ond K. The White H ou se, January 7, 1972.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Political speechwriting ("ghostwriting") in the Nixon administration, 1968-1972: Implications for rhetorical criticism

PDF

John Parker Hale, Constitutional Constructionist And Radical Republican: A Study In Intra-Communicative Conversion And Inter-Communicative Persuasion

PDF

A Descriptive Analysis Of Oral Argument Before The United States Supreme Court In The School Segregation Cases, 1952-1953

PDF

An Empirical Study Of Classroom Teaching Of Ethics In Beginning College Public Speaking Courses

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Ability Of Lay Judges To Distinguish Betweentypescripts Of Individual Idea Development And Group Idea Development

PDF

Christian Science and the rhetoric of argumentative synthesis

PDF

A Historical And Critical Study Of The Public Address Of James Harvey 'Cyclone' Davis (1853-1940) Of Texas

PDF

An Experimental Test Of Fishbein'S Behavioral Intentions Model In The Prediction Of Interpersonal Communication Acts

PDF

The Rhetoric Of The Methodist Camp Meeting Movement: 1800-1850

PDF

Critical Study Of The Nominating Speeches At The Democratic And Republican National Conventions Of 1960

PDF

A Semantic For Oral Interpretation: A Wheelwrightean Perspective

PDF

The rhetoric of the inward light: an examination of extant sermons delivered by early Quakers, 1671-1700

PDF

An Empirical Study Of Self-Feedback During Speech Communication

PDF

Kennedy-Khrushchev Strategies Of Persuasion During The Cuban Missile Crisis

PDF

Emerson'S Philosophy Of Rhetoric

PDF

The genesis and evolution of the creative personality: a Rankian analysis of "The diary of Anais Nin," volumes I-V

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Effects Of Interest And Authority Upon Understanding Of Broadcast Information

PDF

An Experimental Analysis Of The Effects Of Message Type, Degree Of Interpersonal Similarity, And Type Of Interpersonal Similarity On Attitude Change And Ratings Of Source Credibility

PDF

A Critical Study Of Contemporary Aesthetic Theories And Precepts Contributing To An Aesthetic Of Oral Interpretation

PDF

A Critical Study Of Frank C. Baxter'S 'Shakespeare On Tv'

Asset Metadata

Creator Curtis, Alan Morris (author)

Core Title Political Speechwriting ("Ghostwriting") In The Nixon Administration, 1968-1972: Implications For Rhetorical Criticism

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Speech Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Speech Communication

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Dickens, Milton (committee chair), Fisher, Walter R. (committee member), Lowrance, William W. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-672632

Unique identifier UC11355714

Identifier 7414432.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-672632 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7414432.pdf

Dmrecord 672632

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Curtis, Alan Morris

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA