How Speeches Are Written

Abstract

This chapter describes how speechwriting is carried out in organizations. We describe the phases and organization of speechwriting in governments and ministries and discuss the consequences of institutional writing. We provide three case studies that illuminate such speechwriting processes: Firstly, the writing of the government declaration for the German Bundeskanzler, which is delivered once a year. Secondly, the writing of a speech for a Danish government minister, involving an extensive, bureaucratic process of revision and approval. Thirdly, speechwriting for US presidents, where process and organization differ depending on the president. Finally, we categorize different forms of collaboration in speechwriting. Among these are: the counselor, the group, the line, and the hired gun. We also distinguish between the speechwriter as writer and the speechwriter as editor.

Working with Other People: Ways of Writing Speeches

In her memoirs of her time as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan (What I Saw at the Revolution, 1990), Peggy Noonan describes the frustration that arises during the attempt to write a good speech when several individuals are involved in commenting and vetting the text. “It was a constant struggle over speeches,” she writes, “over who was in charge and what would prevail and which group would triumph. Each speech was a battle in a never-ending war.”¹ In her assessment of the damage committee-writing can do to a speech, she writes:

Think of a bunch of wonderful, clean, shining, perfectly shaped and delicious vegetables. Then think of those old-fashioned metal meat grinders. Imagine the beautiful vegetables being forced through the grinder and being rendered into a smooth, dull, textureless purée.²

Even though this image describes writing in the US White House , European speechwriters have expressed similar concerns with the speechwriting process. The process of writing speeches within the institutional settings of governments, ministerial departments, and similar organizations is probably the most determining constraint of how a speech would finally turn out. This chapter provides accounts of speechwriting processes and case studies of how speeches are written in political organizations.

While the speechwriting process in the White House has been extensively described in both research and speechwriter memoirs, there is no discernible pattern to describe individual presidencies and their speechwriting process. Andrew Jackson (1828–1836) delivered more addresses, vetoes, and proclamations than his predecessors and even many of those who followed him, yet he outlined and drafted most of his public addresses . He outlined his First Inaugural Address and drafted an eloquent address only to see two more versions that were deemed stronger. Yet, one of his biographers considered the draft superior to the final address. At the other extremes are presidents who allowed others to engage in all the drafting and got involved only when a final version of the speech was ready. Such was the case of Lyndon Johnson and his major address on the Civil Rights Act (1964). In between these cases are variations on the same theme—of more or less involvement of the president in the working of a speech. Some prefer to work on a draft before finalization, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt sitting with Raymond Moley to finalize the First Inaugural Address , while others, such as Jimmy Carter , receive final drafts with little or no input.

The inconsistencies described here are relative to the rhetorical sophistication of a given president and their appreciation, or not, of the rhetorical perspective in politics. This point is important as it brings us full circle to the essential dilemma facing speakers and speechwriters. Do they believe in the power of speeches as a tool in the hand of politicians to carve a path, to direct people, and to move them in a given direction? The speechwriters vary in their background and experience. There is no specific profession or expertise that is detrimental to the profession of speechwriters as lawyers and writers are considered equal in their “knowledge” of rhetoric and speechmaking. Even a successful dabbling in writing a speech may be sufficient for hiring one as a speechwriter. In short, any individual with peripheral practice in wordsmithing is often sufficient for being hired as a speechwriter. Yet, over the past several decades, speechwriters as a unit have emerged in the White House as a recognizable administrative unit. We know less about such processes in the parliamentary systems of Europe.

In Europe, most speechwriters work in government ministries. How speechwriting is carried out differs not only from country to country, but also from ministry to ministry in each country. Generally, speechwriters are not hired as speechwriters, but instead as advisors, communication officials, or in similar positions as civil servants. They not only do speechwriting but perform a wide range of advice and communication tasks: writing letters to the editor, columns, and produce online material. In general, a speechwriter in a European government ministry is a civil servant that will keep the job after a government changes. Some speechwriters, however, may be political appointees and would leave the office with the departing Minister. Dealing with communication strategy in general, these speechwriters normally function as more than just speechwriters, and they are often referred to as spin doctors.

In the last couple of decades, communication and speechwriting have increased in importance, and speechwriters have more centrally been placed in the ministries. In Northern Europe , for instance, the last couple of decades have shown a trend toward moving important parts of the writing from the technical divisions to specifically assigned communication professionals working closer with the ministry’s State Secretary (US: undersecretary) or Secretary General (“Statssekretær” and “departementsråd”). There is also a more direct contact with speechwriter and cabinet ministers. The organization of speechwriting differs not only between countries, but also between ministries of the same government. In some ministries, the initial phase of writing a speech is left to the technical divisions, and others in the same government may leave all the speechwriting phases to a designated group of communication professionals, sometimes specifically organized and named as a speechwriting group. In spite of the increased ministerial attention to speeches in recent decades, however, speechwriting still generally seems to be considered of less importance than other communication tasks.

It has been claimed, sarcastically, that sometimes speechwriting by civil servants in the Netherlands consists of nothing more than inserting the phrases “Ladies and gentlemen” and “Thank you” to existing written documents.³ Recent research, however, does not support this assumption. Generally, speechwriting in European politics and administration seems to have achieved a new level of professionalism during the last 15–20 years. In spite of this professionalization, there still seems to be more attention given to correctness of facts than to making speeches vivid and compelling. At the Dutch Ministry of the Interior, for instance, a policy of finalizing a document by putting one’s initials on it was very strictly maintained. As in the case of Peggy Noonan ’s meat grinder metaphor , the result was a very long and frustrating writing process that did not contribute to the quality of the speeches: “The speeches became dry because so many people wanted their own opinions reflected in it.”⁴ According to de Jong and Andeweg, the same culture of finalizing documents exists today:

The difference between then (the end of the 1980s) and now is that speechwriters today, especially in the case of occasional speeches, employ ‘backdoor methods’ to discuss speech drafts with the speaker at an earlier stage, resulting in a kind of official approval before all the other supervisors in the organizational line approve the document. In practice, the level of contact between speechwriters and speakers varies according to the speaker.⁵

The importance of checking and finalizing can also be found in other European countries, where some ministries have up to ten steps of approval, where rhetorical considerations are disregarded to the benefit of bureaucratic and institutional demands.⁶ These bureaucratic procedures of approval are sometimes referred to as “the line,” because they take the revision of the speech through a strict “line of command.” While such elaborate procedures of approval may be rhetorically inexpedient, they make sense from an institutional perspective, because the words of a Minister will reflect back on the party of the Minister, the ministry, the civil servants, the government, and in some instances, even on the nation. The words spoken may create changes in policy or advance new policies that must be carefully vetted, especially in the field of foreign affairs. In the multiparty systems of European countries, the most institutionalized speechwriting processes are performed in the government ministries. The phases of the speechwriting process of several Norwegian ministries seem similar to most of the speechwriting in other European ministries.⁷

1. Invitation to speak is evaluated and accepted or declined. The process often begins with an invitation to the Minister or the State Secretary to give a speech. The political staff, sometimes the political adviser, or the cabinet minister will then decide whether to accept or decline the invitation. If the offer is accepted, then information about the event, audience, aim, and so on will be provided to the speechwriter, who must also contribute to the initial plan.

2. The work is organized and information is gathered. If the ministry has one or more people acting specifically as speechwriters, one or more of these are assigned to write the speech. Some ministries have specific speechwriters; some even include a speechwriting group, while others have one or more communication officers taking care of all forms of communication, including speechwriting. In some cases, the task of a given speech is assigned directly to the relevant department or division. The assigned speechwriter will first contact the organizers of the event where the speech is to be delivered and will then gather content and information from the divisions dealing with the subject matter. Generally, the writer will also have one or several short meetings with the State Secretary or the Minister, depending on the importance of the speech. How this phase proceeds depends much on the importance of the speech. The so-called line speeches are those that put forward (new) policies. Such speeches are considered important and will allow more contact with the political staff (e.g., State Secretary and Minister), and provide the opportunity to make commissions (“bestillinger”) to the departments. A commission is a request for information addressed to the Director General of the department (a civil servant), who will then delegate the work within the department. The request could be for information about the rhetorical situation (the event, organizer, audience, etc.) or about the subject or for relevant content or arguments .

Sometimes the speechwriter will ask for information and then develop a draft thereafter; at other times, the speechwriter will ask the department to write a draft. Following, is an actual example of a speechwriter’s commission for a draft from an employee in a department⁸:

Hi

I don’t think we need a meeting for this. But please come by if you want to.

I agree that the script for the parliamentary debate is a good point of departure, but remember that the Minister does not need a full script.

• Write bullet points with the arguments connected

• The title for the Minister is: [Title of speech]? (A weird title, perhaps, or does it make sense?)

• Important that the Minister really connects with the audience (shake hands with the audience). The Minister wishes to be in tune with the audience. Check who will be present - list of participants.

• They call it a consultative conference - it seems that there will be a lot of short presentations from experts and users with experience. Important that the Minister recognizes this in the beginning

• In brief, what is the main message that the Minister wants to convey (the key takeaway)

• Build up the main message with 3–4 themes - preferably numbers and examples

• Create a good closing that connect the threads and points forward.

Can you hand in something on Friday, April 5th?

Greetings [name of speechwriter]

3. The text is structured ( dispositio ) and formulated ( elocutio ). Getting information and drafts from various divisions will often take weeks, especially with important speeches. Sometimes the speechwriter will receive a draft, other times only general information, often of a technical and professional character. The job of the speechwriter then is to organize the information and to formulate it in a way that fits the speaker and is understandable to the audience. Generally, much thought goes into adapting to situation and audience, for instance, by working on an appropriate beginning. While the administrative divisions provide facts, policy , and technical information, the speechwriter normally is the one who must obtain the rhetorical material that may make a speech personal and vivid: anecdotes and personal stories from the speaker, the use of quotes, literature, and cultural references. The main challenge is to unite the demand for technical information and correctness with the rhetorical need to craft a poignant, vivid speech that is written in a coherent voice that is true to the speaker.

4. Check and approval. Check and approval may occur at several stages of the speechwriting process. However, the most important time is when the speech nears completion. Normally, a speech is sent to the political staff, such as the political adviser and the State Secretary, and to the technical division and civil servants, including the Director General. The political staff ensures that the speech accords with policy and the wish of the Minister and with the civil servants and the divisions checking professional and technical references. Thereafter, the speech is returned to the speechwriter with suggested changes. The speechwriter often finds herself in a negotiating position trying to create the best possible speeches while simultaneously negotiating contradictory instructions from the political and the professional side. One speechwriter expresses it in this way:

The divisions and the Minister often disagree. They have different approaches to an issue, or the divisions do not want the Minister to say something in this or that way, and the Minister, perhaps, do not understand why the division makes everything so complicated.⁹

The process of check and approval can have the speech go forth and back between the parties several times. With important speeches, even the Minister may be involved. The Minister may also be involved in changing formulations so that words and expression fit his style . When the speech is deemed finished, the last phase consists of preparation for delivery and the delivery itself.

5. Preparation and presentation. In most cases, the speechwriter’s job is over when the script is finished. Often, a cabinet minister will get the speech just before the speech is delivered. Often ministers read through the speech when it is finished and then reread it in the car on the way to the event. Sometimes the Minister will see the speech for the first time in the car or at the event. On the way to the event, the Minister may ask his advisors about terminology or the event and sometimes rehearse by reading the speech out aloud. At other times, a minister will rehearse the speech well in advance, especially if it is a “line speech.” Generally, the speechwriter is not involved in rehearsing and preparing delivery ; however, there are instances with important speeches where speechwriters and other advisors help the Minister work on delivery sometimes doing so thoroughly and weeks in advance.

When the speech is delivered, a speechwriter or another advisor will often be present. This will give the writer a sense of what works or does not work, for both the speaker and the audience. Being present helps the speechwriter with future speeches. The speaker will often stray from the manuscript , leave elements out or add material, such as short anecdotes, or reference the audience. It is valuable to note these instances as well as the speaker’s presentational style and delivery . Furthermore, since a Minister’s speeches are published in written form and often online, it is important then to authenticate them before publication. In some rare cases, the delivered version would become the official record of the policy . This policy statement will then go back into the system and be handed the next time a speechwriter makes a commission.

Three Case Studies of Speechwriting

Case Study 1: Writing the Government Declaration for the German Bundeskanzler

A Government Declaration is the speech where a new government announces its policy for the coming term. The prime minister delivers the speech to parliament at the outset of its new term. The audience includes members of parliament, the national media, and the public. The objective of the speech is to inform government officials and cabinet bureaucracy about policies and aims of the new government. The speech can be compared to the Inaugural Address of US presidents.

In the case of a coalition government, which is the most common in Europe, the speech will naturally be a compromise, attempting to accommodate the wishes of all parties involved in the government. The prime minister , who used to speak for his or her party, must now address the whole nation on behalf of a national government, which often consists of two or more parties. Following, we provide a short account on the production of the speechwriting process for the German government declaration as it is described by Antje Schwarze and Antje Walther in their chapter on speechwriting for the German prime minister (“Bundeskanzler”).¹⁰

As in the case of American presidents and other European prime ministers, the German prime minister may organize the speechwriters differently from previous administrations. Generally, the organization is informal and relies on personal constellations of trust. Mostly, speechwriters are directly connected to the Prime Minister or her office. One or two individuals would function as chief speechwriters, and a total of five to ten people could be involved in the writing process.

While speechwriters draft different kinds of speeches without much participation from the prime minister , he or she is actively involved in the crafting of the Government Declaration. For this speech, an ad hoc group of loyal, reliable people is designated. Generally, the members will have extensive political experience and some may have previously worked with the Prime Minister. Besides the speechwriters of the Prime Minister ’s office, the group may consist of trusted members of government and party, as well as external personalities such as scientists, journalists, or intellectuals.

While the working out of the content is done by a team of five to seven persons, the actual wording is taken care of by a group of two to three persons, led by the chief speechwriter. Depending on the prime minister , the chief speechwriter may be an official position or may hold this position unofficially. Schwarze and Walter describe the crafting of the Government Declaration as an exceptional case that completely breaks the normal framework for the speechwriting process:

Drafts are edited, passages are put forward to mutual discussion, preliminary written out and sent on to other participants. The divisions (“Fachabteilungen”) of the PM’s office and the press office (“Bundespressamt”) put forward case documents and background information. In contrast to other speeches, the divisions in the department will contribute directly, since these divisions have not yet been properly adjusted to the new government. In the final phase, the work will carry on both day and night. Through the multiple and thorough working through of the speech the original draft achieves a strong and thought through condensation.¹¹

The production of the speech does not follow a standard plan; however, Schwarze and Walter describe five main phases for work:

1. Conception. The prime minister briefs a few selected associates about ideas and wishes for the speech. The main point of the speech is fleshed out, and it is decided which experts, divisions, scientists, political allies, and intellectuals should be involved. It is decided which members of the team will be responsible for which parts of the speech. The participants do an analysis of situation, audience, and aim. In some cases, the chief speechwriters may have had a short brainstorm meeting in advance without the Prime Minister, discussing specifics with the department chiefs (“Abteilungsleitern”) and other involved persons. Thereafter, the main concept of the speech is developed, which is then discussed with the PM. At this point, the Prime Minister may have already been thinking about the speech for months and would seek additional feedback from others such as social groups and parties.

2. Gathering of material and development of drafts for selected passages. The foundation for the Declaration is the coalition agreement, the party program propositions from its partners, and accounts from the divisions. Inspiration for the speech may be sought in previous declarations and in inaugural addresses of American presidents. The speechwriters from the government team and from the divisions develop drafts for selected passages. The beginning and the end are generally the last phrases to be written.

3. Creating the rough draft of the manuscript . As soon as all the major draft passages are completed, they are worked together into one rough draft. At this point, only two or three people are involved. As soon as the first draft is considered finished, it is sent to different departmental divisions, ministers, and advisers for comments. Here, as in all the phases of the writing, the prime minister will discuss different aspects with members of the team and comment on issues such as sequence of themes, content, formulations as well as provide directions about additional further revision. The draft is often discussed with other speechwriters and team members, and sometimes the prime minister will present the first full coherent draft to members of the cabinet and coalition partners in order to secure adjustments that accommodate the whole coalition. Ministers will have access to parts related to their office and may propose changes. After the many revisions and controls, the proposals from the involved parties (divisions, ministers, speechwriters, advisers and coalition partners, etc.) are worked into the final draft. Then, a process of editing and shortening of the speech begins. Finally, language is repeatedly worked through to ensure it is adapted to the style of the Prime Minister, facts and numbers are checked, the remaining instances of officialese are removed, and language is checked for possible misunderstandings.

4. Polishing the final draft. In an intensive final round with the Prime Minister and the closest advisers, the last stylistic changes are made and the text is proofread. The first and last sentences of the speech are often worked on until the last minute.

5. Final manuscript and delivery . In some cases, the final manuscript is worked on until minutes before the delivery . For the Declaration of Prime Minister Konrad Adenauer (1878–1967), the last pages were handed in while he was delivering the speech. This was a special case, while, in general, the prime minister only has limited time to prepare the delivery . When the prime minister goes to the podium, the job of the speechwriter is more or less done. Each speech, as one speechwriter told Schwarze and Walter, is a “play that is only performed once.”¹²

Case Study 2: Speechwriting in a Danish Ministry

Like many European government administrations, and to a certain extent the US administration, the Danish central administration is characterized by a hierarchical chain of command where speechwriters rank below technical experts and department heads. Because of speechwriters’ general subordinate position, they must submit to the commentaries, inputs, and changes that higher-ranking public servants consider improvements of the speech. They have to pick their battles in a government administration largely run by government officers and specialists who value factual accuracy and diplomacy higher than audience-friendly communication.¹³

Most speechwriters in Danish municipalities and government offices are public servants, and it is their professional duty to aid any current mayor or Minister in a truthful, legal, and loyal manner. The speechwriter must be politically neutral and assist the leader in power to perform her official duties, but unlike a spin doctor, the speechwriter is not allowed to give political strategic advice in, for instance, political campaigns.

Generally, speeches are not as valued as exposure in the mass media. A TV debate or a newspaper interview is considered more valuable to a Minister or local councilor than a speech often heard by only the immediate audience. Perhaps this is also why actual cooperation with the politician, praised in every manual on speechwriting, rarely takes place in Danish speechwriting processes. For most political leaders, time is in short supply. Even so, the last 5–10 years has seen increased attention paid to communication and speechwriting, and today, speeches are often the responsibility of appointed speechwriters rather than shifting civil servants.

Mette Stoltenberg Hansen’s study of the speechwriting process in Danish ministries and municipalities shows that there are multiple procedures to follow. Rigid hierarchy is, however, a dominant characteristic. Like many other European countries, the Danish administration of ministries and departments is based on a strict hierarchical structure, which involves the right to give orders downward in the system and the obligation to take orders from higher-ups in the system. This means that the speechwriter is subject to an extensive, bureaucratic process of revision and approval, where government officials, civil servants, assistant secretaries, and heads of sections must control and approve the speeches. The following case study is illustrative of such a process.

A government speechwriter is informed that the Minister has accepted an invitation to speak to an audience of scientists. It is one month before the occasion. The speechwriter meets with the chief consultant who is responsible for the political and legal aspects of the speech, and they agree to order expert input from two different offices. Two weeks later, the speechwriter receives the expert briefs. The following paragraph is from one of the briefs:

The first assessment report from IPCC was completed in 1990 and served as the basis for The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was signed by 154 countries in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The treaty aims to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate changes.

The language is distinguished by numbers (“1990,” “154,” “1992”), technical terms (“atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases”), and abbreviations (“IPCC,” “UNFCCC”). The general impression of the language is that it is complex, factual, and technical. Even though the audience is familiar with climate and environmental politics, such heavy academic language would be unfavorable to use in a speech where the audience’s perception depends on the clarity of the oral communication. Furthermore, the language is characterized by stiff, hypotactic syntax with passive constructions (“was completed,” “was signed”) and relatively long sentences.

Both briefs are written in officialese; they have a high level of abstraction, are heavily loaded with information, and are much closer to traditional bureaucratic and written genres resembling more a bill or the technical report than a speech manuscript . Danish speechwriters in the central administration admit that when pressed for time, they are sometimes tempted to “borrow” directly from a written brief. Many civil servants use the copy/paste function too often to produce a poor speech out of a good brief. Subsequently, government speeches often sound like a reading from the Public Records Act or the economic statement.¹⁴

The speechwriter’s first draft is indeed close to the briefs with a direct import of key terms like “science,” “challenges,” “political,” and “point at.” However, the speech is developed around the idea that science and politics are interdependent, with science inscribed as an active agent. Also, some examples of how scientific data contribute to a political agenda are quoted almost verbatim from one of the briefs: “In Denmark we are close to the 40% reduction in CO₂ emissions that science says we should make before 2020 to stay below a 2 degree rise in temperatures.” However, to facilitate the audience’s understanding, the speechwriter has left out the rather technical formulation “relative to 1990” which refers to the fact that all reductions in CO₂ are measured in relation to a 1990 level.

Subsequently, the draft is sent to the chief consultant who is legally and politically responsible for the speech. He makes some changes to avoid frictions with the involved parties. Besides, he reinserts the conversion to a 1990 level because it is the correct terminology for such measurements. He inserts one more political objective that adds to the overall impression of the manuscript as a detailed, written text loaded with information.

In the second draft, the speechwriter makes a series of changes to turn the manuscript into oral communication. The long, hypotactic sentences are now composed as main clauses with active verbs. The shorter sentences now have only one piece of information which makes them easier for the audience to listen to and absorb. The language is made rhythmic through repetitions and rhetorical figures , such as anaphors and epistrophes (respectively beginning or ending a series of lines, phrases, clauses, or sentences with the same word or words). These changes simplify and clarify some of the aspects that made the earlier version appear complex and abstruse.

The second version is sent to the person responsible for the speech, but in his absence, the speech is transferred to another who adds some changes of her own. Beside a series of technical adjustments, she finds it inappropriate to name two scientists who have written a feature about sustainability in a newspaper. Whereas the speechwriter used them as an example to concretize an abstract topic, she thinks it is indelicate to praise some scientists and not others. The speechwriter meets her request halfway: He keeps the example, but in vaguer wording.

From here, the speech is approved at a higher level in the hierarchy by the office manager who has no comments. It is then sent to the next level, the national head of department who notes that all reductions of CO₂ must be mentioned and relative to the 1990 level. He also adds new information about a future bill. The paragraph about the bill is written in abstract language with several technical terms and no examples to illustrate to the audience the value of the bill. Additionally, the extra paragraph obstructs the overall composition of a list of three, now making it into a list of four items. The speechwriter incorporates the changes since they come from a high level in the hierarchy and are therefore not debatable.

By now, there are three days to the delivery of the speech, and the speechwriting process is so advanced that the speechwriter has no time to work on the manuscript . The speech is sent to the Permanent Secretary and the Minister who both find it inappropriate to name the two scientists. Although the speechwriter at an earlier stage in the process has fought for these names as concrete examples, they are finally omitted from the speech.

Experienced speechwriters in Danish ministries report that they often copy from their own earlier speeches that have already been approved. This is not just about saving time, but also about writing speeches that stand the chance of getting them approved by higher levels in the system. From her own time as a ministerial speechwriter, Pernille Steensbech Lemée has observed how speechwriters are silently and unnoticeably disciplined into writing speeches that will get accepted by the superiors.¹⁵ The phenomenon was described by Ernest Bormann as early as 1960: “The ghost has a tendency to be discreet and careful. He weakens adjectives and tones down the strength of statements. He knows the punishment for a misstatement or a careless word.”¹⁶

Case Study 3: Speechwriting for US Presidents

Several case studies from the practices of the USA can illustrate the varied experience of speechwriting and the presidency. Franklin D. Roosevelt ’s radio address On the Banking Crisis of March 12, 1933 (later dubbed the First Fireside Chat ), was an effective if not a crucial speech altogether. Devoid of metaphors, high eloquence, or even memorable lines, it was a practical speech about how banks operate and why the nation’s banks were depleted of their gold reserve. There could not be much that was exciting about this speech, yet it was among the most successful speeches in American history as it salvaged the banks from collapse and the US’ economy from disaster.¹⁷ The actual speech is rather dull but effective. It was direct, minced no words, and made no attempt to inspire anyone. Its strength was in the message it sent—that banks would resume solvency once people return hoarded money and gold to the banks and that president made it a priority to restore financial stability. The speech was about confidence, instilling trust in the actions the president had taken. Eleven hours later when the banks reopened after being closed for several weeks, many re-deposited their hoarded money and gold. Bank solvency resumed with a matter of days. The speech was successful because it was about clear ideas and a reasonable path to recovery. As for the speech preparations, one person drafted the speech based on an initial outline and three more individuals with knowledge of banking and currency listened with Roosevelt reading the initial draft before editing it and finalizing it. The point made here is that presidential speeches need not be grand or elevated, that specific objectives and clear arguments are necessary for its development, and that the work of speechwriters is essential in all phases of the speechmaking process. Equally important is the fact that the speechwriter wrote a speech that was in line with Roosevelt’s speaking style .

The background of speechwriters who wrote for American presidents is rather varied. The person who drafted Roosevelt’s First Fireside Chat , Arthur A. Ballantine , was Hoover’s Assistant Secretary of Treasury. Roosevelt employed different speechwriters for different topics as needed and would finalize each speech with the speechwriter who drafted a given speech, often lying on a couch and reading or reviewing a speech and finalizing it. One person, who wrote speeches for Adlai Stevenson, was a young campaigner who knew Ted Sorensen as both were debaters in college. Sorensen recommended this person as a speechwriter. Another one of Stevenson’s speechwriter worked for the Director of the Office for War Mobilization and Reconversion and when this individual became an assistant to President Truman, he took his aide to the White House with him.¹⁸ All three speechwriters for the three different politicians had no training in speechwriting and no keen understanding of the difference between writing for the ear and writing for the eye, yet they produced good speeches. Writing for Roosevelt required astute knowledge of the topic or policy , a careful assessment of the audience intended, and a strong sense of how Roosevelt imagined the specific address. Writing for Stevenson meant little editing from the presidential candidate who had little time for careful reading and editing of the many speeches he gave on the campaign stump.¹⁹ Writing for President Harry Truman was altogether a different process as it was primarily a group effort.²⁰ After an initial discussion between Truman and one key advisor over the position to be taken, a team of speechwriters and staff members familiar or involved with the topic at hand would join to discuss the parameters of the speech, outlining it and dividing portions of the speech to different team members. After written portions were finalized, the team would meet again to read each other’s speech portions, providing feedback and reviewing sometimes three or four drafts before being satisfied with the speech. When a speech was important, Truman would call for a meeting to review the speech and give his final decision over it.²¹

The experience of one speechwriter for Richard Nixon sheds a different light on the relationship between speaker and speechwriter. William F. Gavin writes years later of his experience as one member of the speechwriting team and not among the more prominent among them. Yet, Nixon appreciated his input and had specific tasks that Gavin was uniquely able to provide. Gavin’s observations are revealing as he considered Nixon a gifted speaker with a “buttery baritone” voice, and though not an orator, he was nonetheless a good speaker. His speeches did not include ornamental flourishes. Instead, Nixon considered his speeches a tool, even a weapon, to be used when solving problems.²² Gavin also notes that one of Nixon’s difficulties “was his inability to convey sincere emotion without appearing mawkish or, worse, deceitful,” and that as his speechwriter, he helped Nixon overcome this deficiency in one key speech.²³ Knowing of Nixon’s account of his childhood hearing a distant train at night as symbolic of big dreams about the world beyond his small town, Gavin wrote a passage describing a child laying in bed at night and listening to the sound of a distant train and a little boy—Nixon—dreaming “of faraway places he would like to go to.” Nixon liked the passage and its rhetorical work that made him appear as possessing emotions as well.²⁴ The speechwriter dug into the speaker’s biography to produce the narrative line that the speaker appreciated.

Beyond Nixon’s appreciation for attaching some emotional appeals to his seemingly cold character, Gavin tells us, the president repeatedly requested his speechwriters that “the speeches needed anecdotes, little parables, something with heart.”²⁵ Nixon sought to convince his speechwriters that he knew he was right in making this request and that anecdotes, parables, and writing for the heart are needed because they work and because they move people. Nixon reacted to his critics and in turn asked his speechwriters to prove them wrong. He also wanted short lines and something “meaty and quotable and should be material I can easily work into a stump speech, even if I am speaking outdoors without a podium … . Don’t be cute or gimmicky—just hit hard with crisp one-liners whenever they are appropriate.” Ever the fighting president , Nixon, Gavin opines, wanted “to make language do the job.”²⁶ Nixon, then, had a limited view of speeches, whereby they were taken as means to political objectives and that words, and often words alone, could save the day.

On a very short notice, President Ronald Reagan had to address the nation shortly after the space shuttle The Challenger exploded seconds after takeoff. For the nationwide televised event, observed live on television by many and especially by school children seeing the first teacher go into space, the explosion was a horrible site. The exigency of the event necessitated a national address. Reagan had six hours to assemble a speechwriting team that would write a fitting address to the nation. One speechwriter, Peggy Noonan , wrote the initial draft, and for the most part, the final speech was heavily reliant on her writing. The early discussion of the speech had Reagan suggest a “life must go on” theme but it was discarded and replaced with the need to comfort the nation and build the speech around the theme of space exploration as part of the nation’s pioneering history and the frontier metaphor .²⁷ Noonan completed the first draft at 1:00 p.m. with a second draft submitted half an hour later and with only minor tweaking.²⁸ At 3:30 p.m., the speech was almost done with few added paragraphs including the one about Francis Drake, the early sea explorer, allowing for an analogy of one disaster with another. The important implications of this speechwriting case are that the usual speechwriting process, which in the Reagan White House took some six to seven days to construct, was compressed to six hours and yet the result was a first-class speech. Also important is the reality that the initial drafter of the speech can quickly lose control over the content of the speech, as was the case with Peggy Noonan who had to accommodate the input of others.²⁹ Crucially, Reagan had little input over the speech yet the speechwriter wrote a speech that for many was vintage Reagan. She understood him, his visions, and views as well as his style and ways of speaking and wrote a speech that sounded as if he was the one to write it.

Unlike Reagan, speechwriting in the Obama administration is described by the speechwriters as highly cooperative. The speechwriters worked closely with the president and the president , in turn, was highly involved in the speechwriting process.³⁰ The speechwriters went through “countless drafts and rewrites, late nights, and last-minute edits from the motorcade.” Speechwriter Jon Favreau describes the September 9, 2009, address to a joint session of Congress on health care and centering on the line “What we face … is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy , but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.” This was not the president ’s line, states Favreau, but that of Senator Ted Kennedy. The speech was conceived as necessary to rally support and it was timed to be delivered a week prior to the vote on it. While Favreau finalized the draft, President Obama heavily edited the draft. Struggling to find a fitting end to the speech, Favreau was handed a letter written by Ted Kennedy to Obama after being told of his terminal illness. In it was the phrase “the character of our country,” that “jumped out at me,” and with that, he found the concluding phrasing. In the meantime, the President also noticed Kennedy’s phrase and used it as inspiration for his own ending: “our ability to stand in other people’s shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand.” The happenstance of speechwriting cannot be discounted. Speechwriters often struggle with an entire speech or a portion of it and help and even inspiration can come for the least expected source.³¹

Another speechwriter, Terence Szuplat, assisted President Obama in writing the speech for the April 18, 2013, interfaith service for the victims of the Boston Bombing . Once the bombing occurred, the speechwriting team knew it would have to write a speech. The sermon-like speech began with the line “On Monday morning, the sun rose over Boston,” painting the picture of how “a beautiful morning … was shattered by the bombing.” The president received the first draft the night before the service and worked on it and improved it. Among his editing input was the insertion of the biblical verse “God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity,” to function as the theme of the speech and added another biblical phrase, “run with endurance” as a bookend for the speech. Szuplat, a Bostonian himself, states that he wrote the speech not with the larger Boston community in mind but with the image of an uncle, also a Bostonian, who embodied the spirit of the city’s defiance and pride. With this image in mind, the speechwriter wrote the line “If they sought to intimidate us, they picked the wrong city.” After the speech was over, the unidentified uncle called his nephew to tell him that the president “did good.” What we can take from this particular episode is how one person stood for the collective audience and how the concrete individual who embodied the character and spirit of an entire city was a sufficient image for the speechwriter’s inspiration. Both the speechwriter and the president had a heavy hand in the writing of the speech and its final version was a fitting response to a particular event at a particular location and necessary for the success of the speech.³²

Jeffrey Tulis in his seminal study on the Rhetorical Presidency notes that though every president has relied on ghostwriters to write their speeches, much has changed in the practice since the early days of the Republic and that today’s speechwriters are tasked with the talent of translating “the political policies of others into persuasive prose.”³³ Since the president can access the public directly and in great frequency, speechwriters have become indispensable with the need to produce speeches, articles, proclamations, and press releases. Yet, notes Tulis, most speeches are planned in advance and that the commitment to speak often precedes the actual content of the speech, whereby speechwriters write speeches to fit settings already selected, and looking for material or issues that fit the speech in question.³⁴ Tulis is also concerned with the increasing tendencies of speechwriters to encroach on policy issues. He tells the story of James Fallows , President Carter’s head speechwriters who had to arbitrate between Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and their respective draft statements on foreign policy , and when he advised the president that these differences could not be solved by rhetorical means, Carter simply “stapled the drafts together and delivered the speech.”³⁵ Indeed, the key lesson here is that rhetoric is meant to assist in articulating a policy but it cannot salvage the incoherent or the under-developed policy . In short, realizing the limitations of speechwriting face and the potential obstacles presented by speakers is essential to understanding its functions and objectives.

Forms of Collaboration

As it is clear so far, speechwriting can be organized in many ways and take several forms of collaboration. The Speechwriter Susan Jones, who has worked for both political and corporate speakers, distinguishes between two models of speechwriting.³⁶ In the US White House model, “speechwriters tends to work on words already on paper, crafting and refining the president ’s speeches. The team is kept in seclusion. For reasons of security they may not be told the important parts of the speech.” In the UK Whitehall model, producing speeches for cabinet ministers is mostly a collaborative process. It involves the minister, policy officials, press advisers, political advisers, and a speechwriter. The speechwriter functions primarily as one of the officials or advisers. The speechwriters are “closely involved with the speaker and the policy at all stages. They are as concerned with content and purpose as with style . They are anonymous. Many chief executives and directors in business and other non-government organizations are in a similar process.”³⁷ The organization and forms of collaboration in the speechwriting of both Whitehall and the White House may vary, depending on the minister or the president . Some speakers prefer to work closely with one aide, others delegate to a speechwriting group, and yet others are dependent on, or obligated to, letting the speech go through the command line of cabinets and advisers. This is common for many ministerial departments and for a variety of US presidential speeches. We may call these three forms for the counselor, the group, and the line.

The counselor is an individual that is close to the speaker, often someone who has worked with the speaker for a while and who has established a strong relationship with the speaker. Ted Sorensen as John F. Kennedy ’s alter ego is such an example. The counselor and the speaker work closely and are hesitant to involve others equally much in the process. The counselor may also be a close aide but the duration of the work is limited as did Ray Moley who worked with Franklin D. Roosevelt on his First Inaugural Address for several months but left the White House shortly thereafter. In European ministries and departments, this model is relatively rare, where speechwriting generally involves a broad spectrum of advisers and bureaucrats. In political parties, however, especially in smaller parties, it is more common that the party leader has a trusted aide who works as designated speechwriter.³⁸

The group. The more common speechwriting process has several individuals involved with the writing tasks, often providing the speaker with a final or near final product. Some speakers would engage in heavy editing, while other speakers would take a more minimal approach. While Franklin D. Roosevelt preferred the working of one individual on a given speech, Barack Obama worked with a team of speechwriters, often with one speechwriter coordinating the work of a given speech.

While the line (see below) is the most traditional and common in speechwriting in European ministries and departments, the last decades have shown a rise in other ways of organizing the speechwriting process. One of those is the group. The Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry, for instance, changed the organization of the ministry in 2009 and established a communication and speechwriting group of three people (initially four). For each speech, one person from the group was appointed as the responsible coordinator and writer; however, other group members would also provide help and advice.

The line. As previously described, the line involves a process of many steps of input, revision, and approval from internal bodies in the ministry or organization. This kind of hierarchical and bureaucratic process, however, can also be found in some US presidential speeches. The annual State of the Union Address , for instance, proscribed in the Constitution, follows to a great degree the line feature of speechwriting. Here, the input of various cabinet secretaries and their respective units calls for individual input that reflects the work, objectives, and summaries of each governmental department. Once the disparate input is assembled, the speechwriter takes the input and “stitches” them together to ensure a coherent address. The work of speechwriters here is rather convoluted as style , and focus varies between different departments and their speechwriters, yet once all input is in, another speechwriter has to ensure the coherency and consistency.

The hired gun. While ministries, departments, political parties, and big organizations and corporations have employees, communication departments, and even designated speechwriters, other speakers and organizations will need to hire writers externally to help them compose and deliver their speeches. They may get assistance from communication companies or from individuals making a living as speechwriters.

In Denmark, the rhetoric consultancy company Rhetor has carried out an investigation of the speechwriting profession through 55 qualitative interviews.³⁹ They talked to speechwriters from ministerial departments, bureaucratic and political offices in municipalities, political parties, and organizations and businesses. The report identifies six basic models for cooperation in speechwriting.

• 1. The duo: Speaker and one speechwriter work in close collaboration, similar to the model of the counselor mentioned above.

• 2. The dedicated speechwriter: One speechwriter is responsible for the speech and has access to the speaker.

• 3. The speechwriter team: Several speechwriters in a team distribute the responsibility among themselves and generally discuss and involve each other in all speeches. The team has access to the speaker. This is similar to the model of the group mentioned above.

• 4. The project: Collaboration across different offices, where several experts work together on the speech from beginning to end. One person in the project group functions as coordinator or chief responsible person. The group may or may not have access to the speaker.

• 5. The speech coordinator: One person has the responsibility of the speech and may revise it or work it through toward the end. However, the main writing is done by the experts (for instance in the divisions of a ministerial department). One variant of this is the speechwriter functioning as a consultant for the person in the bureaucracy responsible for writing the speech. Generally, the writer does not have access to the speaker, but the speech coordinator may have.

• 6. The standard bureaucracy: One speechwriter is responsible for speeches, which are ordered, written, and handed in. The speechwriter does not have access to the speaker.

Of course, there are many variants of these basic models. In some instances, several models are used at the same time, each fitting a given speech type.

Another distinction between forms of collaboration, especially in ministerial departments, is between the speechwriter as writer and the speechwriter as editor. When functioning as a writer, the speechwriter does the writing and only uses the experts, divisions, or civil servants as consultants. They provide input, information, and facts, and they comment on the text and propose revisions; however, they do not write in any substantial way. When the speechwriter functions as an editor, a selected person from the most relevant division or office in the organization will carry out the writing. The speechwriter then, does not write, but will mainly contribute relevant information about the speaker and improve the draft rhetorically, by revising during the work, and especially the finished draft.

The assessment of a particular form of collaboration between speechwriter and speaker ultimately depends on the quality of the speech and how effective it could be with the intended audience. Some speakers prefer to work with one speechwriter, while others prefer the work of several individuals before a speech is finalized and ready for the speaker’s review. Some even prefer the work of two competing speechwriting teams so that they can select the best speech. Yet, some guidelines are possible nonetheless. When time pressure is the issue, the work of one speechwriter may be advantageous. A crucial speech, on the other hand, may benefit from the work of several speechwriters. Some speeches, by default, are the product of multiple departments such that they could benefit from the line of speechwriters, advisors, and civils servants. When comparing the various forms of collaboration, we believe that for a given speaking situation, one key or central speechwriter ought to function as the individual who is most familiar with the speaker, who organizes the work of other speechwriters, and who finalizes the speech and gets it ready for the speaker review and final editing.

The central idea advanced here is that familiarity with the speaker is essential and that one speechwriter who knows the speaker is in the best position not only to write the fitting speech but also to advise the speaker about position, phrasing, and warranted advocacies.