Skip to main content

tv   Lectures in History Presidential Speeches  CSPAN  November 11, 2021 10:47pm-12:00am EST

10:47 pm
>> download c-span's new mobile app, and stamp today with live video coverage of the day's biggest political events, from live streams that the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings from white house -- and arguments. and our programs from the washington journal we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. ion to cable and okay, welcome to our discussion of presidential speeches through history.
10:48 pm
first point i want to make is, that, the first centuries of american history the president didn't make too many speeches president washington's farewell address which was ghost written and who goes to read it? hamilton, of course. if you saw the play, there was the famous song one last time. people call it an address, washington never gave it as a speech. washington never gave that as a speech, it was all in writing. presidents gave inaugural addresses, occasionally gave speeches and speeches for other occasions. but it's a communication with the public that was generally
10:49 pm
in writing. sometimes, official presidential messages, and political communications through allies who put out material supporting their political position. that happened quite a bit in the 19th century. why was this? because the norms were different. there was an expectation that presidents should not give a lot of speeches, should not try to be demagogic. by now you've read the federalist paper as we know, the founders were very concerned about the dangerous demagogues, and the president were aware of this. even though in private they tried to mold public opinion, they were more concerned about their public behavior and image. the other thing that's pretty obvious, sometimes we forget,
10:50 pm
but technology did not allow the president's voice to reach many people. the 19th century, no radio, no tv. the first decades of the century, no telegraph as well. travel was difficult. it is not as if presidents could get on horses and that afternoon visit the farthest reaches of the realm. it didn't happen that way. it was difficult. in the middle of the 19th century, you have the development of the telegraph, rail systems in place, you also have another underappreciated bed of technology and that is short hands. by the time of the lincoln government debate in the 1970, as we had shorthand which was a really good demographic record of the lincoln debates, have multiple telegraphic records
10:51 pm
and other historians talk about slight differences in those records. really, it was not until the 20th century that substantial numbers of people can actually hear the presidents voice. if you look at the chart here, household radio sets, in 1992, there was only 60,000 households in the united states that had radio sets. by 1932, the election of franklin roosevelt, that number was up to 18.4 million. there were some presidential radio addresses during the 1920s, calvin coolidge actually had a pretty good voice for radio. herbert hoover did some speaking on the radio. really, when we think about presidents and the electronic media, we are thinking about franklin d. roosevelt.
10:52 pm
roosevelt had fireside chats. a lot of people think you get them every week, no. he gave them on special occasions the fireside chats. there were not as many fireside chats as people think there were. roosevelt had a very good voice for radio, and he understood what with fire side chants, you didn't talk the same way as you did when you were reading to a large crowd. a lot of times, politicians of the area say -- that was an amazing speech just talking into the radio, microphone [noise]. people will get turned off by that. fdr said that's not the way you talk on the radio, he understood that. he also used radio effectively
10:53 pm
on certain special -- in some of his major speeches were broadcasts. roosevelt gave acceptance speeches -- speeches. you may say, roosevelt flew to the convention in 1932 and accepted the nomination in person, which was something people just did not do in those days. wow, this was something special. in 1936 he gave an acceptance speech again. really, acceptance speeches as we know it would not become regular lies until well into the 20th century. one speech in particular, that coincided with his presidential responsibilities, it came after the attack on pearl harbor, the
10:54 pm
day of infamy speech. we will see it again at the beginning and then skip ahead. [inaudible] ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> gentleman and representatives, i have the distinguished honor of introducing the president of the united states.
10:55 pm
[applause] >> vice president, mister speaker, members of the senate and house of representatives, yesterday, december 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the united states of america, was suddenly and deliberately attacked by forces of the empire of japan. the united states was -- and solicitation of japan, still in conversation with its government and its emperor, looking towards the maintenance of peace in the pacific.
10:56 pm
indeed, when -- it went on like that for a while. >> but one thing i notice when franklin delano roosevelt was giving the speech, he gestured with his head. so you go, december 7th -- there was a simple reason for that. roosevelt needed leg braces to stand. he was a survivor of polio and could not walk. he needed to hold the podium just to maintain his position. if he let go he could fall. i mentioned the 1936 democratic convention. he actually fell, and the pages fell out of order, which created a difficult situation for him, and he was able to improvise. and so that was a bit of a limitation on his ability to gesture to an audience. now in this particular speech,
10:57 pm
he told americans what had just happened. the attack on pearl harbor. but there are details, where americans are very recently learning. so go ahead here. with the speech. >> yesterday, the japanese government also launched tax attacks against malaya. last night, japanese forces attacked hong kong. last night forces of japan attacked guam. they attacked the philippine islands. last night the japanese attacked wake island. and this morning the japanese attacked midway ireland. japan has, therefore,
10:58 pm
undertaken a surprise offensive, extending throughout the pacific area. >> okay. so what we see here is that roosevelt was trying to convey the enormity of what had just happened. it was not simply an attack on one military base, pearl harbor, but part of a massive offensive in the pacific. he wanted to rally public support for declaration of war. and he got it. he got almost unanimous support of congress, with one exception. jeanette rankin, who by pure coincidence had also voted against the declaration of war, the first world war. she served two non consecutive terms in congress, and both times or claim to fame was that
10:59 pm
she had voted against the declaration of war. the presidential speech writing function gradually increases in part because presidents became more mobile. during the 1950's, president eisenhower begins making greater use of what we would today call air force one, he originally called it the columbine. and at those times, eisenhower, who had a pilots license, sometimes he actually flew the plane. he was an extremely competent guy. so eisenhower did do some traveling. made some speeches around the country, even in some television. one thing he didn't do, though,
11:00 pm
in the 1950,'s was live press conferences. there is pressure from the press for him to do live press conferences and he was resistant to that. because, he thought, he might inadvertently reveal national security information. now, you may wonder why he was so paranoid insensitive about national security information. well, he had been commander of american forces in world war ii. and when you go toe to toe with hitler, you get kind of sensitive about those things. but he did end up having recorded press conferences. and they worked pretty well. he was good at them. we don't think of eisenhower as a great orator or somebody who is particularly expert in this domestic policy, but the guy read his briefing book, he knew his stuff. he did pretty well in the press conference. the big innovation in
11:01 pm
television came with jfk. jfk did hive live conferences, a format particularly good for jfk. number one, he got the reporters. he understood them culturally. he had briefly, in fact, been a reporter himself. after he got out of the navy in the second world war. he didn't need the money, obviously, but he wanted to be able to say that he had had a civilian job, so his father arranged him a reporting gig. and he understood the press. he understood how to handle himself. he was very good at it. and he came across well on tv in parts, and as we will talk more on this, we will get into debates, ironically because of the medication he was taking. if you look at pictures of jfk and nearly 1950, he looks kind of sickly. lyby the 1960s, he looks much better, because he was taking
11:02 pm
cortisone, which sometimes has the unfortunate effect of they sorting peoples features. but jfk was so thin, it actually filled him out made him look good. and his health was not in the best of shape during his presidency, his problems were much worse than the public knew at the time. but he came across well on television. there were his speeches, important, 1962, of course. revealing the presence of soviet missiles in cuba. and during the 1960s, a topic we will come back to, is the state of the union. during the 1960s, president started giving the state of the union address at night. previously, they did it during the day. in fact, during the 19th century, they didn't give a speech at all. they sent a message to congress.
11:03 pm
this was part of the norm that i mentioned earlier, that presidents should communicate in writing and that they should be careful about demagogic appeals to public opinion. so throughout most of the 19th century, the state of the union addresses were written documents, not oral presentations. well, woodrow wilson had a very different concept of the presidency. he renewed the idea of giving the state of the union speech in person. and other presidents took the mantle. antel.but still, for their, 194d 1950's, the state of the union was a speech, really to congress. but starting with lbj, it became a sort of television extravaganza, with congress has the studio audience, which is really what congress does now.
11:04 pm
it's an address to the people and congress just happens to be there to applaud. and we'll see a state of the union in just a few minutes. as television advanced throughout the 1960s and 1970s, richard nixon, not generally known as a master television, put a lot of emphasis on his public communications and his speeches, actually, if you read them, were pretty good. except during watergate, during his other public appearances, he was not in the best of form. >> i am not a crook -- >> that just didn't go over very well. but one president i want to dwell on for a bit, because we tend to associate him with the public presidency and use of rhetoric, of course, is ronald reagan.
11:05 pm
reagan, as everybody knows, has spent most of his career as an actor. he knew a lot about lighting, sound, about how to carry himself. you know, he used to say, it's different when you know how you look from behind. he did. he had an acute awareness about how he was coming across on the screen. his critics accused him of being superficial. when you read a speech -- the speech, you can see it for yourself. reagan, to an extent that people at the time didn't realize, actually did a fair amount of his own riding, during the 1970s between his riding in california he gave presidential -- we knew this before because we
11:06 pm
have the manual scripts in his rather legible handwriting. the guy knew how to put together a sentence. he was in a great literary figure, but, he could write sentences and paragraphs, which is not necessarily true of all presidents. the speech i asked you to look at, was his 1970 speech to the national association of evangelicals. he did express his views on the soviet union, we will talk about that in a minute. we had a chance to look at these groups in a speech, and i gather and it might have surprised you, but it was not about the soviet union exclusive. in fact, the soviet union came sort of asked the last item in the list of things that he was talking about.
11:07 pm
this illustrates a point that we are discussing course in that's the role of politics -- in american poet. his agenda item was to get them involved in politics. specifically, get them involved in politics on the side of the causes that he preferred. you may wonder, what? why does anybody have to convince avondale calls that they should be -- remember this in 1983 -- for a long time, american angelical's had been hesitant to get involved in politics. reagan was trying to engage them and he was trying to engage them by talking very directly about religion. an issue that he emphasized
11:08 pm
throughout the first part of the speech, of course, was abortion. we tend to think it is very much a contentious issue, but it's been that way for decades. here, it's also important to remember that evan delicacies were not in the forefront of opposition to abortion, in the 1970s. the avondale occult's were slower to get involved in that movement, and reagan was trying to mobilize them in that direction. he was talking more broadly about the role of religion in politics, and he even used the fake footnote quotations. as you know from this class, they wrote that america is great because america is good. he wanted to do that and his speech writer, tony dolan, who
11:09 pm
by the way was catholic, he wrote this speech because of evan jell-o calls and it included this from tocqueville -- one of the advantages of reading this as you could see how reagan tweaked stuff in quotations and he didn't like the exact wording so he added the -- to the flames with righteousness. reagan had heard about the fake quotations before. in just applied his own version to it. if you want to see him using that line, and also in the context of the speech, here is a clip. [inaudible]
11:10 pm
>> the american -- democracy was the discovery of the great tribe of our founding fathers and they said it will not be guarded by gods, we must be governed by tyrants. exclaiming the mention of -- image of -- [inaudible] the gotta give us life in liberty at the same time. that was george washington. he said of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. finally, that is true of all american democracy and relaxes the court bill put it out after he got on the search for america's greatness ingenious, and he said not until i went into the churches of america. --
11:11 pm
flame with righteousness did i understand the greatness and the genius of america. america is good. if america ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. [applause] >> as you know -- never said any such thing. you can see the whole type of script there. i hope you have had a chance to look at it. you can just see here how deeply engaging it was in the drafting of the speech. the whole suctions right here in his own and writing and it's a very actively engaged in speeches around the time.
11:12 pm
mind you, if you go to the reagan library and look at type scripts of speeches in the second term, it is much less engaged. whether it was the early's spot of all timers, nobody will ever know. in the first term, anyway, reagan was an active participant in the speech writing process. the great thing about having access to these type right, you can actually [inaudible] see the script. >> evil empire, he said the scene for you. there was a proposal at the time for a nuclear freeze. to oversimplify, the united states and the soviet union, would just phrase the number of their strategic nuclear
11:13 pm
weapons. hold them in place. reagan was trying to stop that. reagan did not think this was a good idea because the soviets had nuclear superiority. as we know now, with the soviet union was aim mess and just about everything else. the economy was in terrible shape. people had a horrible standard of living. but, they did have a pretty powerful nuclear force. that's one area where they had the advantage. reagan didn't want this, he didn't want them to have that advantage. he was trying to stop the movement for a nuclear freeze. the reason i emphasize this, and when i had to sit down exams in the past and asked about the speech, somebody would enter, this speech was designed to defeat president reagan's proposal for a nuclear speech. that implements that people weren't clear on the concept. he was fighting the idea of a
11:14 pm
nuclear freeze. remember, it is 1983 -- the cold war is still on. in the speech, you will notice your first to the cold war in the past tense. sometimes that happens during the 1980s. they refer to the cold war specifically as a period in the 50s and 60s are now think of the cold war as an entire period before the closing of the soviet union on christmas day in 1991. fedex claims -- explains the past tense. we didn't make no -- know in 1983 that the war was gonna fall in 1989. if you had gone in time machine to 1983 and said, eight years from now, the soviet union will close, the soviet union well to sow, parts of the soviet union were split off into independent countries and at least for a while there will be free elections in russia, of course
11:15 pm
things kind of change with vladimir putin a little later, but the old soviet union collapses. the old soviet union people would have thought you are crazy. 1983, it was still a going concern. people were fearful of the soviet union, the soviet union was fearful of the united states. there were times in the 1980s when the cold war may have gotten hot and we avoided that. if we hadn't avoided that, we wouldn't be here today. and so reagan wanted to send a very clear message. again, he thought he could mobilize the evangelicals because the soviet union is officially atheistic and wanted to drive that point home to them. and engage them against the
11:16 pm
idea of moral equivalence. we are going to see that in the clip we are going to be showing right now. >> -- >> this is paul giving a speech about the clip. >> let us pray. friday will discover the joy of knowing god. and let us be aware that while they preach the pre-supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man and predict it's eventual domination overall peoples of the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world. it was c.s. and is
11:17 pm
unforgettable screwtape letters, he said, the greatest evil is not done now in the scenes that dickens love to paint. it is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. in those we see the final results. but it is conceived and ordered, moved, seconded, carried and minuted in clear, carpeted, competent, warmed, well i did offices by quiet men with white colors and cut fingernails and smooth shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. like other dictators before them -- they are always making a final territorial demand. some except him at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. but if history teaches anything,
11:18 pm
it teaches that simple minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. it means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom. so i urge you to speak out against those who would place the united states in a position, militarily and moral inferiority. i've always believed that old screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in a church. so when you are discussion of the nuclear freeze proposals, i urge you to beware of the temptation of blindly declaring yourselves above it all, label both sides equally. to ignore the facts of history and the impulses of an evil empire. to remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong. and between good and evil. >> there it was, right?
11:19 pm
>> evil empire, those words. >> when the words, focus of evil, in the modern world, evil empire, came out -- >> okay, that's professor kengor talking more about the evil empire. and this is very controversial at the time because people wanted have closer relations with the soviet union. and the perception was that by using the term evil, we would be provoking the soviet union. some of you may see in the clip i showed from the television series the americans, where the two characters who are kgb spies, are shocked to see reagan talking this way. and yes, within the soviet ranks there was a great deal of shock about reagan. now, how much did reagan's policies have to do with the fall of the soviet union? well, that's quite a debate. some would argue that at most
11:20 pm
reagan's policies were peripheral. the soviet union collapsed because of internal reasons. otherwise you would say that the soviet union fell because reagan gave him a push. you decide. you read the evidence. i'm sure this will come up in a lot of your courses an international relations. important thing, again, is what he was using the speech for. this is a case of a presidential speech having multiple audiences. obviously, the immediate audience was the national association of evangelicals. more broadly it was religious people in the united states, evangelicals in general, who he wanted to mobilize. but when the president speaks, the world listens. people all over the world knew that he had referred to the soviet union as an evil empire. this was awesome concern in
11:21 pm
moscow, to put it mildly. it reach places like warsaw, and there were people who took inspiration from these words. so for some people it was inspirational, for other people it was confrontational and alarmist. ... so the speech was a matter of delivering multiple messages to multiple audiences. and we see this a lot in presidential speeches. i want to talk about another reagan speech. and this is something i hope you had a chance to read about in peggy noonan's chapter and that is the d-day speech, a speech he gave on the 6th of
11:22 pm
june, 1984, 40 years after the landings in normandy. why 40? not 50? as a practical matter, that runs of d-day them were simply dying, getting older. the white house figure this was the last substantial chance to get a large number of veterans of d-day in one place, so a lot of planning went into this. there was a famous speech, -- a site where on normandy beaches, american rangers scaled a cliff. if you've ever been there and you say, you look up, you say, wow, this is an act of amazing bravery for these guys to be able to do that. well, militarily it was a different story. military historian say, well,
11:23 pm
maybe this was totally unnecessary because the germans -- well, that's a different issue. the heroism of the rangers who scaled the cliff. that's really what reagan wanted to celebrate. democratic lighting. we talked about democratic writing, bingo, a case of democratic writing right here. every speech in the white house goes what's some called the approval loop. in the 1980s it was paper, but later all of this would be done electronically. it shows who gets a copy of it, who weighs in on the speech. and from the perspective of the speech writer, this can be somewhat annoying. they label mightily on 5g asked
11:24 pm
of a speech and then everyone once have a say. if you recall from the chapter, peggy noonan says that the speech is a -- , everyone wants to have a say in a speech. even though it is annoying for the speech writer, sometimes the approval can save you. in this case, there was a factual error in the original version of the speech. let me enlarge this a little. enlarge this a ben elliott was the guy in charge of speech writing. double check facts. as a recall, the big guns were not in place at the top of the cliffs. they had been moved, which is true. so they check the facts, jim
11:25 pm
was right. and they changed the text of the speech to remove the factual error. that, by the way, didn't work with the fake tocqueville comment. but nobody is perfect. so the speech goes through the approval loop. and it had the intended effect. see the circled ideas, the enemy guns were quieted, etc. and so, reagan gave the famous speech. and again, it's worth seeing some of the video. >> podcast with bryan lam every tuesday -- >> may he rest in peace. ronald reagan passes away today. again, much of europe had been under a terrible fear, to mark
11:26 pm
that day in history, when the allied army joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. for four young long years, europe had been under a terrible shadow. free nations had fallen, jews cried out in the camps, millions cried our liberation. you are poisoned slave in the world prayed for its rescue. here in normandy, the rescue began. here the allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history. we stand on a lonely windswept point on the northern shore of france. there is soft about 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of man and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. at dawn, on the morning of the 6th of june, 1944, 225 rangers jumped off the british landing
11:27 pm
craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion, to climb these shear and desolate cliffs and take out enemy guns. the allies have been told that some of the mightiest guns were here, and they be trained on the beach is to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. and the american rangers began to climb. they shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. when one ranger fell, another would take his place. when one rope was cut, arrange would grab another and begin his climb again. they climbed, shock back, and held their voting. soon, one by one, the rangers pull themselves over the top and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of europe.
11:28 pm
225 came here. after two days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms. behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the range of daggers that were trusted at the top of these clips. and before me are the man who put them there. these are the boys of -- [applause] these are the man who took the cliffs. these are the man man who helped free a continent, the heroes who helped end a war. gentlemen, as i look at you, words of esteemed -- >> okay, that is a line that is remembered even to this day. there. two years ago, my family went to normandy and we stood at that very spot.
11:29 pm
my tour guide was there any took out a piece of paper. he read that speech. he read that speech. so it made a tremendous impression. now obviously, it's 1984. reagan is running for reelection. obviously, everything the president does during a reelection year has something to do with that. and they associated reagan with heroism, military strength, with american history. history. that's one of the advantages you get when you're the incumbent president. the other speech or the other speech writer memoir i asked you to look at is by ben wild men. as i mentioned before, the team -- and that's michael, his son.
11:30 pm
michael. cmc. -- and >> this focus is on clinton talk about social security. the democrats since fdr. every so often, republicans would try to do something with social security. and it would always blow in their faces. and so this is an opportunity for clinton to seize the public attention and focus on this issue. so they include a line in the speech about social security first. what could you do if you are a republican? when you withhold a pause from that with all your elderly constituents watching on television? i don't think so. because the camera is going to pan to the chamber, and those of us who are old people, who
11:31 pm
know who is applauding for us and who isn't. okay. so this team -- >> hope you read to the end of the chapter, something really important happen to president clinton. the controversy that will eventually lead to his impeachment. so how does he address this in the speech? he doesn't? doesn't say a word about it. and people say, whoa, what is clinton going to say about all this? [inaudible] i'm going to give the speech i want to give. and so -- >> c-span, more relevant than ever.
11:32 pm
>> i will advance to the part -- [noise] >> now if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we will then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow. what should we do with this projected surplus? i have a simple for word answer. save social security first. [applause] thank you.
11:33 pm
>> okay, say social security first because some republicans were talking about using the surplus for more tax hikes. and he trumps them on that, to use a peculiar verb there. and this was all planned. and it turns out that they reacted to the speech generally very positive. and from the standpoint of crisis communication, this is a terrific illustration of the line i quoted before, from mad men. if you don't like what is being said, changed the conversation. change the conversation, i'm going to talk about social security. you can talk about all that, you know, very sorted stuff later, i'm going to talk to you about what i'm doing. and it worked for him. public opinion was with bill clinton, in the 1998 election,
11:34 pm
-- and so you will about bill clinton policies, he has one of the most brilliant politicians we have had in the white house. i think this illustrates that point. last point that i want to make before we get into a q&a, the rule of religion. we saw president reagan talking about religion and you might be thinking to yourself, well, that's just regan. lots and lots of presidents have to talk about religion. and it's curious that among the presidents we talk about most is president obama. because during the 2008 campaign -- >> people said oh, we don't know what his religious beliefs are. a name like barack obama. we don't know. >> which is peculiar given that
11:35 pm
he is very religious and knows the bible better probably than a lot of the people who were criticizing him. and in this speech, the white house easter prayer breakfast, he talks in very, very, very, very direct terms. very specifically christian terms about his beliefs. >> i can't tell anything to this crowd about easter that you don't already know. i can offer a couple of words very quickly before we get begin the program. for me, the celebration of easter puts -- into perspective. with humility and with all we give thanks to the extraordinary sacrifice of jesus christ, our savior. reflect on the brutal pain that
11:36 pm
he suffered. the scorn that he observed. the since that he bore. this extraordinary gifts of salvation that he gave to us. a we try as best we can to comprehend the darkness that he endured so we might receive gods word and yet, even as weak grapples with the sheer enormity of jesus's sacrifice, on easter we can't lose sight of the fact that the story didn't end on friday. the story keeps on going. on sunday. comes the glorious resurrection. of our savior. good friday may occupy the throne for a, dr. king rants preached. but ultimately it must give way to the triumphant meeting, the drums of easter.
11:37 pm
guns that be the rhythm of renewal and redemption, goodness and greece, hope and love. easter is our affirmation that there are better days ahead. and also a reminder that it is on us, the living, to make and so. through gods mercy, the peter the office all said were given an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfavorable. captain evan it's inheritance that calls earnest be better, a love more deeply, serve least of these as an expression of kreiz love it here on earth. the spurt we fill and the example of his holiness, pope francis, encourages us to seek peace, serve the marginalize and be good stewards of god's creation. like millions of americans, i'm honored that we will be welcoming him to our country
11:38 pm
later this year. i want to quote him. he says that we should strive to see the lord in every excluded person who is thirsty, hungry, naked. to see a lot of president even in those who have lost their faith. in the imprisoned, sick, unemployed, persecuted. to see the lord in whether embody or insole, who we body discrimination. isn't that how jesus slipped? >> so, with that, let me focus on questions and comments. one question i would like to pose -- like did president obama use that particular reference? why did he quote pope francis? again, a couple of things are going on here. like pope francis?
11:39 pm
thoughts? >> i think the recent obama specifically chose pope francis -- his general this is religious. they are less conservative in their -- >> that's right, pope francis [inaudible] he's from south america. we might talk about this at another time, he is a scientific background. he is a chemist at one time. but in this case, he's talking about the marginalize. so, in doing an entirely different take on the christian
11:40 pm
message that a lot of other politicians will make. the president here is talking about his personal belief, but he is casting them in ways that will be appealing to more progressive voters. so, this draws contrast between the way barack obama talks about religion and the way ronald reagan does. so, quite a contrast. i know talking to you before class, you were a bit surprised by the empire speech. what reaction did you have? >> i was expecting them to focus [inaudible] the relationship for americans have with [inaudible] abortion and abortions relationship to god. i feel that idea that she
11:41 pm
focuses on our relationship [inaudible] because i think reagan had other intentions with that speech. >> yes, that's right. >> actually thought it was [inaudible] he starts off by going off on -- [inaudible] i thought part of the reason it could be when he talks about the evil empire he setting up a scenario which [inaudible] i feel like the way that you could put abortion in the conversation, it's appealing to the religious group by saying oh, yes save the unborn child. insert religion into politics a cod way to save the unborn child. so, he kind of goes off of this rhetoric around abortion. about saving lives and that's how he set up his appeal. >> okay. >> he also mention an amendment
11:42 pm
[inaudible] to [inaudible] it seems like [inaudible] >> yes, and realistically no one actually thought that the school prayer amendment would be part of the constitution. i worked in washington starting shortly after that speech. a lot of politicians talked about it and everybody knows it was not going to happen. but it was extremely appealing at had substantial public support in large areas of the united states. you still to the state are going to find lots of people who think they ought to be part of the constitution. and that is the constituency he was talking about. >> he also talked about the family [inaudible] it creates that distinction between the way american view family, without [inaudible] the soviet union these family
11:43 pm
much different then americans he blend social conservative ideals very well with how america represents it and how the soviet union is the end of this is of that as well. >> yes, is something we'll talk later when we get into political parties and the speech nicely illustrates that at the time, the conservative movement was a fusion of social conservatives on the one hand. who are very concerned about issues like family, abortions, etc. and national security conservatives who were very, very strongly anti communist. that brought a lot of those people into the tent. remember, the cold war was a personal issue for americans because a large fraction of voters actually have roots in countries that were behind the iron curtain. particularly polish americans. who very much aware that at that time, the pope was polish.
11:44 pm
part of the message was directed at them, as well as to the [inaudible] social conservatives, the national security conservatives, . at other times reagan spoke to the economic conservatives, with mixed results. on the one hand, he cut taxes, on their hand spending increase. so, that's not a new story. in recent years we've had a similar pattern of fiscal politics. but that's something we saw during the 1980s. 1980s. it's interesting how nothing like the -- it's also.
11:45 pm
it's not just that the state shouldn't -- abortion. -- anti-family and anti-religion. . very much on peoples minds, sure. -- [inaudible] also talks about how [inaudible] when he also emphasizes the arguments some. and so i thought that that was interesting. so he didn't have time, professor kengor during the talk, emphasize that.
11:46 pm
not only is that speech -- it's for an immediate audience. talking about the necessity in all forms. and he is talking about -- -- and reagan had lots of critics,, some of the critical accounts of the reagan administration in some people say that reagan was using dog whistles to appeal to these groups. that's one line of criticism. yeah. >> i think [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] i think the speech is certainly
11:47 pm
-- and have imagery -- one thing we are waiting about is [inaudible] the gettysburg address as a speech. so i think you can really see how it's in specific focus, its impact on the, audience more conservative, -- evangelicals but it's incredibly straightforward. >> and what did you get from the speech writers? because this is something a lot of you guys are going to be doing, maybe not quite president. but i guarantee you that some of you in the years ahead of you will be doing internships, maybe work for advocacy groups and some of you will be writing speeches. so what do you get out of these
11:48 pm
two, one by a republican and won by democrat? >> [inaudible] one is their opinion and one has input and [inaudible] but it doesn't matter [inaudible] and each politician has a different agenda. but also proofreading is especially important. [inaudible] >> yes, and in the case of the tocqueville quote, there was [inaudible] -- >> noonan specifically reminded me of language -- [inaudible] and the noonan uses colorful imagery [inaudible] preventing that and didn't want it to be -- [inaudible] >> and that's a constant
11:49 pm
tension. between the policy experts and between the people who put together colorful a memorable quotes. that's always going to be part of the tension in the speech writing process. and part of what's allen, again, called democratic writing. in my own experience i remember one time i was writing something on washington and i quoted something -- where is that from? robert frost, yes. and my daughter said bum -- immediately revealed that robert frost, and she wrote -- so i had to explain where came from. and it was on the discard pile anyway. so that's a frustrating story from my own time writing
11:50 pm
speeches in washington. what else? other major takeaways. yeah? >> [inaudible] speech writing is essentially [inaudible] and the experts and the members of the china speech for example. who are an expert policy person was taking issue with history on the river, that analogy, and the speech writers like, i'm just trying to keep it [inaudible] . >> again, tremendously frustrating for speech writers. speeches, when you are president of the united states, every word weighs a ton. and using one word, they are going to be major consequences. for example, george w. bush, gave a speech, in which he talks about iraq's efforts to
11:51 pm
procure yellow cake uranium, and he mentioned british intelligence, etc. you know, just a short passions in one speech. but that one short passage led to enormous controversy -- whether the underlying intelligence was faulty. and from that point it's frustrating, to understand, particularly when it comes to foreign policy [inaudible] >> that is a direct quotation and [inaudible] weaver, ever failing stream. and throughout the speech he attempted to associate government, freedom and liberty, with religion, and also in the
11:52 pm
speech, he said how to protect government interference and never intended to -- and the concept of religious belief itself and how there is a different aspect of the speech, he basically was making reference to throughout history, that, our government has made reference to police, when that is not necessarily the core of our national institution, that separation. >>. >>,. . value and i think it was effective and
11:53 pm
how he gave a speech where there was that question and these are issues and that's why it's important that t .an do it and it's necessary one of two words. . >> chapter again -- sort of talked about the line as literature. and certain -- political consultants have turned this into. i wonder if you think that there's an appetite, eight americans would be -- to the more rhetorical style that was more prominent? >> [inaudible] the previous president, was not known, but it's what the
11:54 pm
previous president thinks. and that's something that politicians pay tension to. . >>. . i. . . nd that .i respond. and on the highly practical
11:55 pm
notes, i will go on today's class and it will close and i hope you've gotten a little bit of insight into the presidential rhetoric and we will continue our presidency look at a virtual class on wednesday and take care. .
11:56 pm
. happening in the 1920s and 30s and problems, i will probably
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm

8 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on