Written speeches versus extemporaneous remarks
I’ve said many many times that I don’t like speeches, with the exception of Churchill and Lincoln.
I don’t like them because I’m not an auditory learner and tend to mentally drift off during monologues, although I can pay very close attention to dialogues or to plays. I’m not sure what that says about me, but it’s always been the case. Speeches, sermons, lectures, book readings—it really doesn’t matter what it is, I have some difficulty with them all unless the speaker is unusually riveting or funny.
But I have another problem with political speeches that has less to do with my own personal idiosyncrasies and more to do with the medium itself, and it’s that although speeches tell us what message the politician wishes to give that day to that group, almost all politicians have speechwriters, which is the equivalent of a ghostwriter. Although the politician has final approval of the speech, and tells the speechwriter the general message he or she wants to convey, the speech actually tells us little else about the mind and thought process and intelligence of the speaker. It tells us a lot more about the mind of the speechwriter, who is often unknown and uncredited.
Of course, different politicians have different levels of interaction with their speechwriters. Some even suggest phrases and do some very heavy editing, while others give the speechwriter something closer to free rein, at least within the general boundaries of the basic point of the speech. The first type is reflected more in the speech he or she gives; the second type less.
Over time, a politician delivers a series of speeches that at least tell us something about what he or she wishes us to think he or she wants to do in office. But we still don’t know if those things will really be done, or whether the politician will even try. That’s why the phrase “campaign promises” contains a built-in sense of irony.
All of this applies to every politician who does not write his or her own speeches, and it’s one of the reasons I don’t think much of political speeches in general. It’s also one of the rationales underlying the debates—to give us the unscripted thinking of the candidates—although memorized sound bites (which every politician, not just Marco Rubio, employs) can take away from the extemporaneous nature of a debate to some degree.
Now, I don’t like debates either, as I’ve also stated many times. But that’s because I get frustrated at the way they focus on trivialities and sound bites, the length and number of them, the fact that all the candidates aren’t required to answer the same question, and the media’s (usually successful) attempts to get interpersonal conflict going. Debates are useful, however, for letting us know much more about the candidates’ minds and how they work than a speech does, and how they function under pressure. The same can be true of a non-softball interview. The general rule is that extemporaneous speech is far more telling than a prepared speech.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the two GOP front runners and rivals, present an especially sharp contrast in that regard. The first contrast is in tone; brilliant lawyer and champion debater Cruz has a formal quality even when speaking off-the-cuff. Everything seems measured, including his pauses for emphasis. Although to me this speaks of an organized and disciplined mind and a stable emotional makeup, which I think are very good traits in a president, lots of people seem to hate it and to hate him for it. I’m not looking for a buddy (“who would you most like to have a beer with?”) in a president, but some people seem to be.
Donald Trump, with his casual and often fragmented and even incoherent, contradictory, and repetitive style is regarded by some people as fun, charming, non-PC, and a refreshing breath of fresh air. To me, his spontaneous remarks convey disorganization, and his catch-phrases (everything under him will be “great,” he “loves” just about everyone he doesn’t hate, other candidates are “nasty” or “stupid) are the product of someone who is speaking—not to be too-PC myself—empty bullshit or manipulative snark. Yes, I understand he’s signaling this that and the other thing, but to me he comes across as weak rather than strong, emotional rather than logical, inconsistent rather than firm, and bereft of ideas and even understanding of some of his own written (by someone else) policy positions.
But what really puzzles me is how often I see people reacting to a prepared speech by any candidate as though it means much more than the words that come out of a candidate’s own mouth unscripted. To me, that makes no sense.
I find Trump to be the most rhetorically empty or devoid of substance of all the Republican candidates. Political speech in general is filled with emptiness by design and Trump takes the art form to new heights.
Regarding Trump – all too true. Yet there is something refreshing about him. He is not couched in PC jargon. No artificial flavors or coloring. One waits for someone who is, publicly, unafraid of being called, racist, sexist, phobic, hater. Unfortunately, the first model isn’t at all as much as it should be. I take it as being true that the first of most anything is woefully inadequate – such as the first Catholic president, the first black president, the first female president. Here’s hoping for some progress.
Neo:
“But what really puzzles me is how often I see people reacting to a prepared speech by any candidate as though it means much more than the words that come out of a candidate’s own mouth unscripted.”
“Candidate” is a key distinction because when a politician in office, particularly the President, delivers a prepared speech, that’s a weighty policy statement, not just campaign rhetoric.
I remember when Gore gave his acceptance speech at the 2000 Democratic Convention. He said, “I am my own man”. Afterwards, I saw a man-on-the-street segment with people being asked what they thought of Gore. Someone said, “I like him. He’s his own man.”
I really don’t understand what people are thinking when they watch a speech.
Trump is clearly pandering to his audiences. When he proclaims himself as a neutral party with the Palestinians to a rally, he thinks he’s talking to people who
Believe in the protocols of
Zion. At Aipec, he gets his Jewish son in law to write a speech. Which is the real trump? Both?
I’m not a beer drinker, but I’d ratther have one with someone who makes me think, who knows things I don’t and who seems intelligent and thoughtful. I can’ imagine spending more than about 30 seconds with a blowhard like Trump. Somehow, I expect a decent candidate to bring a bit of this thoughtfulness and intelligence to a speech.
Why is this blog so appealing? This is why – from http://neoneocon.com/2006/02/20/dancer-from-dance/
Our forbearers (whether they be the authors of the Old Testament or the Declaration of Independence) give the distinct impression that words (both spoken and written) were as elevating to them as the dance discipline is to the French. Although we Americans should know better, we have managed to boil away nearly every drip of honor and dignity from the stunning human accomplishment that is communication by word.
Have you ever met someone who believes himself to be a great salesman; preferring “intangibles” to that boring engineered product stuff and those tedious decision trees and spreadsheets and so forth?
The program is that you are supposed to buy from him because he’s a great success; wears an expensive watch and ring and tie, drives a pricey car, talks about the many big deals he’s made – though it’s hard to follow just exactly what he’s supposedly describing when he talks of them.
“Well, what are you waiting for? Sign on the dotted line! What? Do you lack confidence in yourself? Haven’t I told you how how wonderful taking my advice will be? I am a success! Be like me! Sign! What has your own judgement done for you to this point?”
Now, obviously, most Trump voters are not really buying the line of bullshit he’s pitching. He’s selling himself to an audience that is not so much taking the bait he’s offering, as much as enjoying the crazy show, and enjoying what it is that the fact that they are enjoying that show, is doing to the minds of the “GOPe”.
And they are apparently willing to hand the tiller to Trump not because of what he is – or says he is – but because of what he is obviously not.
They figure that in doing so, they, personally at any rate, don’t really have much to lose.
They might be right, in that much at least.
A couple of thoughts.
Neo, your thoughts could serve as a primer for listening to Candidates. It is also well to remember that after a short time the basic stump speech has been tested and honed to fit the audience, and has even less to do with the candidate’s positions or temperament.
While an imperfect measure, I think that much can be learned by listening to a Candidate, or other salesman, speaking extemporaneously.
Trump, for instance, frequently comes across like a angst ridden teenager.
I don’t know whether more blame is due the media, or the state of the electorate in general for the idea that a President must be entertaining. I note that even some of your commenters find Trump’s bluster refreshing.
,
Trump is a hyper promoter and salesman.
Sales are closed upon emotion — not logic.
Check out just about ANY auto or truck commercial.
As for diamonds…
Sheesh.
Trump has so many delegates in his pocket because he’s winning the emotional voter — hands down.
His AIPAC speech was embraced because it felt presidential.
It answered the question so many have : “What would a Trump presidency sound like from the lectern?”
As Dr. Carson intimated, Trump can switch ‘hats’ in seconds.
Going from attack mode// full bombast — to managerial mode.
IF Donald prevails in November — a VERY up hill battle — he’ll prove to be an outstanding president — because his internal life script demands it.
As a manager, Trump will be pragmatic in the extreme. He’s got ‘orthodox’ managerial decision making down pat. (Wharton)
&&&&
As a president, Hillary will be ideological in the extreme. She’s on a crusade — her script is as laden with rage as Barry Soetoro’s.
That so many can’t dope out just how psychologically damaged Hillary and Barry are — amazes me.
A gal that can go from being a “Goldwater girl” to a Watergate harridan — pursuing RMN — is a gal that has no ideological center — other than her own being.
Think of her as Willy Loman in drag.
It’s the prestige cuts that wound her.
She wants to be “well liked.”
Hence the booze fests while flying thither and yon as Secretary of State.
Those who will not like her well — must be Class Enemies.
Ahhhh yes, bluster. In a world where all is quiet a racket is a blessing. In a world all cacophonous, melody and meter hit the spot. In a world where everyone whimpers, bluster is an answered prayer. All of this is of an approach to human nature that that nature succumbs to easily, that, in fact, it desires. Thank you Mr Trump for the bluster. I recall others who’d had it and were popular for it. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind. And bluster no more precludes intelligence, ability, than a Harvard Law degree occasions it — see B Hussein O.
I’ve been a Cruz supporter for quite awhile, and you hit on some reasons why his style resonates with me. I currently plan on voting for him when our primary (finally) arrives.
During the last couple of days I went to Trump’s website to read his policy papers. I expected to be totally unimpressed.
Instead, I found a lot I agreed with, some I disagreed with (but they were reasonably explained), and a number of areas that were as vague as would be expected with any other politician.
Long story short: I no longer fear a Trump presidency, and more firmly believe that he would be significantly better than Clinton, Sanders, Biden, or anyone currently on the Democrat stage. He has moved up in my estimation.
Others have commented — and I recollect Trump having said — that there is a difference between campaign mode and governing mode. While there is a fair amount of substantive overlap–although not total–the methodology of expression can (and maybe should) be quite different. His policy papers are more in the line of governing mode.
Campaign mode is much closer to a cultural exhibition. Since politics is downstream from culture, as many have noted, then there is value in using cultural methods to sell one’s program.
Bottom line: my first choice would be Cruz, and, should Trump get the nomination, I would be supporting him then. As Cruz said at the start of one debate, any of the then-current Republican candidates would make a better president than Clinton. I see no reason to disagree.
neo,
I too am not an auditory learner and also tend to mentally drift off during monologues. I suspect auditory learning does not lend itself to pattern recognition.
I too am immensely impressed with Lincoln and Churchill’s speeches.
Once in my life have I heard an orator who seized my attention and held me mesmerized to his rhetoric. It was Martin Luther King’s famous speech. An NPR retrospective.
At the time, I was fairly young and still a liberal, so I can’t say if it would have the same impact today but the man could hold your attention. Great speech making is direct and simple with memorable phrases. It has a natural flowing coherence.
CBI:
I have no idea why you would think Trump’s policy papers at his website have much (or really, anything) to do with him, other than to state what he wants you to think he will do.
He rarely speaks cogently or consistently about what’s in them, and has sometimes answered questions at variance with what they say. He has also stated (that is, with words from his own mouth) that it’s negotiable and everything is flexible/mutable.
JurassiCon Rex:
Not all bluster is created equal.
There’s empty bluster that just says things without thinking through how they will be done and what their consequences will be: Donald Trump.
There’s smarter bluster that says things that actually could be implemented and would be more effective: Ted Cruz.
The empty bluster is more emotionally satisfying to some people.
I seem to also recall something Teddy Roosevelt said: speak softly and carry a big stick.
Neo:
“I seem to also recall something Teddy Roosevelt said: speak softly and carry a big stick.”
As contrasted with Trump’s “YELL LOUDLY and carry a YUUUGE schtick.”
Ms. Neo,
You ask why I would pay more attention to a written policy paper than to an off-the-cuff reaction. One reason is that the former is, by definition, better thought out. As such, it also is more likely to be implemented over the long run.
I know that I am better able to keep on track and remember rationales when I have things written down and can refer to them. When answering questions quickly, my memory sometimes fails. Really, it does. I suspect that you, too, have had that happen. I suspect that the only way to avoid that sort of situation is to say absolutely nothing.
Most people say nothing using silence; most politicians say nothing via stump sound-bites or mellifluous misdirection. While Trump does that at times, he also at times speaka various possibilities and alternatives, sometimes even hyperbolically: he’s not afraid of offending people or refining his thoughts. As I noted before, this is in accord with part of various cultures in our country.
As a reminder, I prefer Cruz to Trump–much prefer him, in fact. But my preference doesn’t translate into a great fear of what Trump might do as president, although there is always a risk, no matter with whom. I do think that Trump is better able to handle the shrieking media (and NPR-soft-spoken-enticements as well) than is Cruz. No matter whom we find nominated, he will be attacked, so that is a consideration.
——-
Finally, a belated thank-you. I’ve followed your blog since early 2005, and have learned a lot and benefited much. Yes, I disagree with you on this matter, but that does not lessen my admiration, respect, and gratefulness for you and your writings. Thank you again.
Neo-neocon,
No, no, no, no. Bluster is bluster. All bluster is equal or very nearly equal, unlike all created men.
Bluster the verb: talk in a loud, aggressive, or indignant way with little effect; noun: loud, aggressive, or indignant talk with little effect.
If Cruz blusters he blusters as Trump blusters. Stop the spin. You may believe he says more that’s intelligent but you dasn’t call it bluster.
And Teddy Roosevelt’s ” Speak softly and carry… pertains to American foreign policy — but you know that. Teddy himself never lived by it. It might have killed him had he tried.
I also find speeches boring to listen and often drift away when trying to listen to a sermon at church. However, it really is the style of the speaker and not the content. If the speaker uses simpler vocabulary and shorter sentences, it makes it much easier to listen to.
There are very few politicians that give a speech as if they were naturally speaking. Rubio was very good at it. Reagan was another.
Hillary is terrible. I mean, really bad. Her delivery is so wooden and so orchestrated. Just awful.
Trump has actually made it even harder for me to listen to a canned stump speech. Or the memorized ‘sound bites’ candidates use in a debate. Now it all sounds so fake. Would wish for more spontaneous answers. Less of the over-prepared, perfectly scripted wording.
JurassiCon Rex:
It doesn’t matter what I call it—many people consider that Cruz blusters, and that he merely blusters in a different way than Trump.
And Teddy Roosevelt blustered in a way that was very different from Trump.
Your saying it’s all the same doesn’t make it so.
CBI:
You write:
“You ask why I would pay more attention to a written policy paper than to an off-the-cuff reaction. One reason is that the former is, by definition, better thought out. As such, it also is more likely to be implemented over the long run.”
My answer is very similar to what I wrote in the post: better thought out by whom? Trump often doesn’t even seem to have read his policy statements that are written by others. And I repeat that the ex-post-facto statements are a much better guide to a person’s mind that statements (or speeches) written by others.
Glad you like the blog.
I did not think that there were any recordings of Lincoln. Link to same Neo?
R. Reagan gave excellent speeches.
Per the Smithsonian. But, unfortunately, no recordings of Lincoln’s voice exist, since he died 12 years before Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, the first device to record and play back sound.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ask-an-expert-what-did-abraham-lincolns-voice-sound-like-13446201/#FC8GC0mmKWZvjUBL.99
A vote for Kasich is a vote for Trump, a vote for Trump is a vote for hrc or a stand in. The joy of a hissy fit has a short half-life… about 240 days.
Neo, I have to think that JurassiCon Rex is putting us on. Could he in seriousness make the statements that he made in response to your basic post; and in his follow on? If so, he may be a poster child for some of the symptoms you describe in Trump supporters.
When I used the word bluster, it never occurred to me that it would be applied to Cruz. Maybe he indulges when live on the stump because that seems to be what passes for passion in a candidate, (reference Hillary). I don’t know, because when I hear him on TV he speaks in a measured and serious way. I would actually define him as the antithesis of bluster.
I am sure that Teddy Roosevelt did bluster; but, I expect that his contemporaries thought that he was a seriously hard man who could back up his hyperbole. (It is also likely that the technological limits on amplification required a robust speaking style; and the fashion of the day required a more flamboyant one. Still I expect that he made his points clearly.) Those who indulge in bluster today likely do it to cover a deficient grasp of the full range of the issues, or maybe to fill a psychological need. Need I say more?
Amen Parker.
Did you guys see that letter ostensibly written by Trump about the US territories? I may have been pointed to it originally from this site, actually. Anyway, it’s a good reason to take position papers with a grain of salt:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/trump-appears-to-have-heavily-plagiarized-op-ed-from-carson/
Oldflyer,
I conclude Mr. Dino is a saboteur, adept but ill-intentioned, and not alt-right; but an agent of the left. Note his/her recent arrival, just when the field narrowed. I see K-E and a few other Trump apologists as sincere. I may disagree with them, but we all come across well intentioned people we may disagree with. I detect no sincerity in Mr. Dino.
His/her reasoning, such as it is, is based upon nothing more coherent than DJT’s recent interview with WaPo. Populists seek the lowest common denominator. The mob is not prescient, its just a mob blinded by emotion, however understanable the emotion of the mob maybe; it must be resisted. Mr. Dino is not blinded by emotion, he/she has a clear agenda of destruction as does DJT.
expat Says:
March 22nd, 2016 at 12:08 pm
I’m not a beer drinker, but I’d ratther have one with someone who makes me think, who knows things I don’t and who seems intelligent and thoughtful. I can’ imagine spending more than about 30 seconds with a blowhard like Trump. Somehow, I expect a decent candidate to bring a bit of this thoughtfulness and intelligence to a speech.
***
When I was still commenting at Hot Air (before the shift to FB registration – pox on it!), one of the other commenters relayed a personal memoir of meeting with Trump some years ago under somewhat unusual conditions — I can’t find the bookmark now, of course — but the gist of it is that one night, when OW was down-and-out, he wandered down to the beach to eat, cold, a couple of hot dogs, which was all he had. A man was there alone grilling some steaks, and offered to cook OW’s food along side his, then “accidentally” tipped them into the coals and gave OW steak instead. They conversed pleasantly and intelligently about a wide-range of subjects (OW, per his commenting record, is very erudite but also well-grounded in reality), and he was very surprised to learn, later, that his genial and generous host was The Donald.
FWIW
Aesopfan; I think your user name reveals your affinity for fairy tales. That story you offered is surely one of the first order.
I am having a hard time getting my head around the idea of a “down and out” man wandering onto a beach where he would find DJT grilling. Sooner believe that Jack climbed up a bean stalk and…
Ms. Neo,
I had commented that I pay more attention to a written policy paper than to an off-the-cuff reaction in part because the former is, by definition, better thought out and, therefore, more likely to be implemented over the long run.
You responded:
My answer is very similar to what I wrote in the post: better thought out by whom? Trump often doesn’t even seem to have read his policy statements that are written by others. And I repeat that the ex-post-facto statements are a much better guide to a person’s mind that statements (or speeches) written by others.
I think that some of the other comments here shed some light on this particular disagreement we have. I think that Trumps speeches — which are unscripted and off-the-cuff (no speechwriter) — present a fair reflection of what he feels. On the other hand, I believe that the written policies better indicate what he thinks upon reflection and, yes, upon receipt of valued advice.
My impression is that Trump is aware of the significant differences between those two modes, knows that “think” trumps “feel” when one wants results, and would preside in a manner seeking good results.
Since I tend more toward the “say what you think, not what you feel” persuasion, that is one reason I resonate more with Cruz: that’s how he usually talks in public. Trump is more on the “feel” side of things in most of his appearances, although at times he does move more into “think” mode. And, personally, I believe that, when it comes to actions, the “think” should dominate the “feel”–although the latter can help much with motivation.
I have commented elsewhere that Trump has many positions similar to a JFK-Democrat: lower taxes, border controls, etc. (I think his policy papers are better than JFK’s would be, but I’ve not done an exhaustive study either.) Overall, I’m not campaigning for Trump, and prefer Cruz by a good bit. But I don’t find Trump to be so bad as to warrant the strong feelings so often evident in attacks on him by other conservatives and libertarians. I believe that, while Cruz would make a better president, Trump would still be much better than Clinton, Biden, Sanders, Warren, or anyone else I can think of from the Democrat stable.
CBI:
I think a lot of people are guessing about Trump (including you and me). You seem to think that Trump would govern more according to how he supposedly thinks, as expressed by the words he chooses to place on his website, words written by others for the most part. You say (and I agree) that his spoken extemporaneous words express how he feels. I would also say they express what he REALLY thinks, as opposed to what he’d like us to think he thinks (the written words on his websites). The spoken extemporaneous word is a guide not just to feeling but to thought.
In general, I find that people act as they feel much more than they act as they think, or as they’d like us to think they would act. Also, I much prefer (as I believe you do) a president with no dichotomy between thinking and feeling, who can express his or her thoughts in cogent and clear words.
Oldflyer Says:
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:40 am
Aesopfan; I think your user name reveals your affinity for fairy tales. That story you offered is surely one of the first order.
I am having a hard time getting my head around the idea of a “down and out” man wandering onto a beach where he would find DJT grilling. Sooner believe that Jack climbed up a bean stalk and…
***
Yeah, does sound that way.
I just reported what I read.
However, if you want to get a handle on the initial story, he goes by the handle oscarwilde on the (pre FB) Hot Air.
AesopFan Says:
March 23rd, 2016 at 9:21 pm
Tales of such private generousness are legends within the Trump employee ranks.
It has been asserted that Trump’s way of instilling pride and performance — is by way of folded $100 bills that he slips into handshakes for swell performance.
He’s known for putting up recovering employees (from an operation) at his Florida super estate… for weeks at a time.
Clinton is well known for corrupting the media — by planting her paid agents in the public eye — pretending to be dis-interested parties — proclaiming thus and so on matters important to Clinton.
The recent AP piece on how the DoJ is never going to indict her smacks of such somnolent propaganda.
( Nothing to see here, move on, move on, move on… )
Tales of such private generousness are legends within the Trump employee ranks.
Aristocrats were often that way as well, good patrons. But they were the patrons and the patronized were still the patronized.
Ms. Neo,
I think that we have a lot of overlap in how we view Trump. I agree with you that in most cases “people act as they feel much more than they act as they think, or as they’d like us to think they would act. Also, I much prefer (as I believe you do) a president with no dichotomy between thinking and feeling, who can express his or her thoughts in cogent and clear words.”
I thing that where we differ is our take on this particular case and scenario: that of Trump as president.
More precisely, I infer that you believe the risk of Trump often acting highly contrary to his published policy position is extremely high, whereas I believe that the risk is rather less (although higher than, e.g., for Cruz, and more akin to, say, McCain). There is a lot of subjectivity in these risk assessments, and even post facto it can be difficult to determine if a risk was justified.
I do think that it is reasonably clear that, in cases where Trump’s written policy differs significantly from and is much better than that of the Progressives: in those cases the likelihood of a better outcome is higher with Trump than with Clinton/Biden/Sanders/etc. Since there are a fairly large number of these, I find it an easy choice to take a risk on Trump (should he be nominated) than to face a sure negative consequence with Clinton/Biden/etc.
Whoever (Trump, Cruz, other) gets the nomination, I think that we can be sure that (1) (s)he will be savaged by the Democratic media; (2) the Democratic media will encourage supporters of non-nominees to feel angry, feel hurt, and to stay home or try to form a third pary; (3) there will be (are) a lot of strong, hurt feelings within the various conservative and Republican groupings that will have to be considered; and (4) the Democratic candidate will be portrayed highly favorably by the Democratic media (including Yahoo and Google). Just facts of life. I do cringe when many of us–and the candidates (very much including Trump)–demean the motives of those who disagree. I appreciate that many, such as you, are wont to stick to issues and make logical cases.
Within the next few months, someone will be nominated, and at best almost 50%–likely more–of us will be disappointed. How people handle that disappointment will, I think, have a great impact on the outcome in November.