Matt Latimer is trying to sell a book and to do that he’s employed two strategies that have worked for others: (1) take an idea with a kernel of reason and pop it into something “bold” and “contrarian”; (2) and this applies to former Bush Administration staffers trying to sell books – say something negative about Karl Rove and/or George Bush.
Latimer’s execution of the second strategy isn’t worth discussing. His execution of the first is ham-handed, as Vinca suggests. There’s a credible argument to be made that, by virtue of the growth of the presidency and (as Clark points out) the proliferation of media outlets, the president is forced into too many speeches that don’t have obvious value.
But we should be careful not to assume that the only way a presidential speech has value is if it moves the policy meter. Some speeches are simply meant to let a constituency know you care.
The St. Patrick’s Day speeches Latimer cites are good examples. The three speeches traditionally (going back beyond the Bush Administration, before Karl Rove got his greasy hands on the presidency) are for the Shamrock Ceremony, in which the president and the Irish prime minister exchange gifts and pleasantries; a public Irish-American event, usually in the East Room, at which every president mentions that the architect of the White House, James Hoban, was an Irish immigrant; and a lunch on Capitol Hill attended by an Irish delegation and a bunch of members of Congress.
Do any of those speeches drive policy? No. Are they a pain in the ass to write – to try to find fresh things to say year after year? Yes. Should they be scrapped? Not necessarily. Those speeches are about camaraderie and friendship, and they probably hold more value for the prime minister of Ireland than they do for our president. Most foreign leaders like to be seen with the US president, and Ireland doesn’t often come up in political conversation (aside from Vinca’s excellent work on Northern Ireland).
As for doing too many remarks to Hispanic groups, I’m not sure I see the harm. Not everybody gets to hear every presidential speech. The White House staff and the press corps do, but often the people that need to be reached have other things going on in their lives. They won’t get around to listening to the president until he says something directed toward them. And if you want Hispanic groups to be engaged on immigration reform, you’re going to have to spend time talking to them about what the policy is, how it aligns with their interests, and what you’d like them to do.
These aren’t the types of remarks that wear out the public. Most of the public doesn’t see or hear these speeches. It’s the constant national-profile appearances – primetime press conferences, addresses to Congress, speeches to the nation — that have to be husbanded more carefully and deployed with precision.
One final point: I don’t see how asking a president to write his own remarks would force him “to give more care to the remarks he delivers.” Speechwriters have the time to specialize in crafting remarks. They may even have a particular talent for it. Most presidents, even if they’re talented writers and communicators, don’t have the necessary time to spend on a speech. A few times a year it happens – State of the Union, maybe a couple of other biggies in which the president takes a firm and guiding hand.
But overall, the president’s got more presidential things to do. He relies on speechwriters to get the speeches in good shape just as he relies on the chief of staff to keep the West Wing functioning and the national security advisor to keep an eye on Kazakhstan and the counsel’s office to make sure no one’s going to lunch on a lobbyist’s dime and his political advisors to know which constituencies need to feel a little speech love. If the president did all these things, the quality of each would suffer and his overall job performance would be terrible.
There’s a wide gulf between “Kennedy’s call to land on the moon” and “an Oval Office address commemorating the fifth marriage of Britney Spears.” And in between are the dozens and dozens of little speeches that may not make big news or drive policy immediately, but instead get incorporated into the president’s efforts to reach out to constituents and, hopefully, win their trust and allegiance and motivate them to act on his behalf.
These minor remarks may be frustrating to the people who have to prepare them – or hear them for the umpteenth time – but they serve a purpose. The president shouldn’t fire his speechwriters; he should just make sure he has good, patient, and trustworthy ones.
