ANALYZING AN INAUGURAL SPEECH Former Presidential Speech Writers Offer Insights January 17, 1997

---

Questions asked in this forum: What are the general goals of an inaugural address, and which Presidents have been most successful in meeting those goals? How does the political climate of the day shape the tone of an inaugural address? How much of what the speech writer has written does the President actually use? Do writers try to make sure a speech has at least one key phrase that is meant to be quoted throughout history? (Like, "Ask not what your country can do for you," etc...) Is it better for a speech to be long or short? Why? Clinton's 1st Inaugural Address: On a mild January day, William Jefferson Clinton delivered one of the shortest speeches of his career - only 14 minutes long - to celebrate his inauguration. It began with the words: Today we celebrate the mystery of American renewal. This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But, by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring. Links A complete collection of Presidential Inaugural Speeches Presidential libraries and archives Character Above All, a NewsHour special, analyzed Presidential character in the 20th Century

On Monday, January 20th, for the 53rd time in world history, the victor's right hand will be placed on the Bible, his left hand will be lifted into the air, the Chief Justice of the United States will administer the Oath of Office and another U.S. President will be sworn in. Stepping up to the podium on the Capitol steps, the newly inaugurated President will deliver the first speech of his new term. It is the time to set the tone for the next four years. It is a time to mend fences battered throughout the Presidential campaign. The speech is an art. The speech is a science. Perhaps the most memorable inaugural speech in U.S. history included the following passage: "Now the trumpet summons us again, not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are,but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, 'rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation,' a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort? ... The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Speech, Friday, January 20, 1961 How are speeches like this written? What is the inspiration? Do Presidents craft them alone or do they have help? (They usually have help.) Two noted Presidential speech writers, Ted Sorensen, (speech writer for John F. Kennedy), and Ray Price, (speech writer for Richard Nixon) join the Online NewsHour in a forum analyzing the words and messages of an inaugural address. Edward Simon of Richmond, VA asks: What are the general goals of an inaugural address, and what Presidents have been most successful in meeting those goals? Ted Sorensen, speech writer for President Kennedy responds: The speech is meant to summarize in broad terms the principles and goals that the President hopes will characterize his next four years in office... As for successful inaugural addresses: Lincoln's second, Franklin Roosevelt's first, and, if I may say so, Kennedy's, are among the stand-outs. Ray Price, speech writer for President Nixon responds: The general goals depend in part on time and circumstance. For a new president - a first inaugural - one key goal is to set a tone, introducing himself a) to the people of the nation for the first time actually as their president, not as a candidate, and b) to other world leaders, watching to see what directions he charts for America's role in the world and its relations with friends and adversaries. To that world audience, he needs to demonstrate understanding but also firmness, resolve and leadership. If the nation has been in turmoil, it's a moment for healing -- to speak to the spirit, to summon up what Lincoln so memorably cited as 'the better angels of our nature,' and to suggest, without too much specificity, approaches that can forge unity out of division. If he faces an opposition Congress, as we did in 1969, another goal is to try to prepare the way for at least a reasonable "honeymoon" period before partisanship takes over. In any case, it's important to set the basic policy directions of the new (or renewed) administration, and to make clear the values those directions are meant to serve. But it's not a time for is a legislative laundry-list. An inaugural has another unique dimension: in effect, it's the supreme sacrament of our democratic system, the new President sharing the platform with his outgoing predecessor, the oath administered by the chief justice, the ceremony itself taking place on the steps of the Capitol, bringing the three branches of government together in a rite as old as the republic to ratify the choice of the people, freely expressed -- as Nixon put it in his own first inaugural, 'In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that keeps us free.' As for which presidents have been most successful in meeting the goals, I don't claim the mantle of an historian. Perhaps Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, when his first inaugural helped rally the nation from the terrors of the Depression. Lincoln's second inaugural is perhaps the most memorable though its promise was cut short by his assassination. Back to the question index... Janet Rathner of Bethesda, MD asks: How does the political climate of the day shape the tone of an inaugural address? Ted Sorensen, speech writer for President Kennedy responds: Inauguration is a time for healing partisan divisions, and the address should be non-partisan and conciliatory. The deeper the divisions, the more conciliatory it must be. Ray Price, speech writer for President Nixon responds: The political climate of the day, especially in its broader sense, is always a key influence and often a crucial one. Any speech, to work, has to connect the speaker with the listener. What the audience brings to it is as important to its success as what the speaker brings, and the political climate shapes what the audience brings. I particularly remember the period leading up to Nixon's second inauguration, during the final negotiations to end the Vietnam war. The climate created by the war was so central a factor that I was given daily private briefings on the negotiations, sometimes as long as an hour, by the president himself, yet right up until Inauguration Day we didn't know whether it would be as President of a nation at peace or at war. This uncertainty heavily clouded the whole process of preparing the inaugural, psychologically as well as substantively (the peace agreement was finally reached three days later, on January 23). The political climate also significantly defines what the President needs to achieve with his inaugural. Assuming he takes office with a clear sense of the direction in which he wants to take the country, its that political climate that determines what he has to overcome politically in order to do so. And the Inaugural is his first big shot at doing it. Back to the question index... Sonia Garber of Sherman Oaks, CA asks: How much of what the speech writer has written does the President actually use? Ted Sorensen, speech writer for President Kennedy responds: An Inaugural Address is so formal and carefully timed, and destined to reach so many diverse audiences, that a President will adhere closely to his prepared text. How much of that text was drafted by a speech writer, and how much was originated, edited or revised by the President, varies from case to case. Ray Price, speech writer for President Nixon responds: Each President works differently with his writers; there's no pattern to it. An Inaugural is uniquely personal, and my guess is that most Presidents work a good deal harder on that than on most of their other speeches. The only one I can talk about on this first-hand is Nixon, whose pattern was different from most. He had been a champion debater since high school, and was always more comfortable without a written text than with one. Even in the White House, only about one out of twenty of his speeches was written; the rest were without notes. Working with him on a speech was always a back-and-forth process, which he used it in part to refine ideas as well as their expression. Beginning shortly after the 1968 election he himself read every past inaugural, analysing what had worked and what hadn't. We talked it out extensively, before and during the writing process. He dictated copious notes; I prepared a lot of material; we kept refining it, again going back and forth. About midnight on January 18th we celebrated together what we thought was its completion. The next morning, as we prepared to leave for Washington, he called with another thought about the opening -- wanting to invite the people to share "the majesty of this moment" -- and I worked out the new opening that I quoted from above in my answer to Edward Simon: "I ask you to share with me today the majesty of this moment. In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that keeps us free." From start to finish it was very much a collaboration, and he was the senior collaborator. Of course, a lot of good material got left on the cutting-room floor; that's also a normal part of the process. Back to the question index... Matthew Abrams of La Jolla, CA: Do writers try to make sure a speech has at least one key phrase that is meant to be quoted throughout history? (Like, "Ask not what your country can do for you," etc...) Ted Sorensen, speech writer for President Kennedy responds: Every serious speaker or speech writer hopes that many or even most of the phrases in such an important address will be memorable and quoted for decades. But attempting to craft one for that primary purpose, or even to identify in advance which phrase is the most memorable, is rarely successful. Ray Price, speech writer for President Nixon responds: Yes, especially for something like an inaugural, writers do tend to try to include a memorable phrase that will resonate; this was pretty common even before the term "sound bite' worked its way into the language. This, of course, can cut both ways. Unless the remembered phrase accurately reflects what the speaker means to be the central theme of his message, the theme is likely to get lost. Going back again to the inaugurals I know best, the most-headlined phrase from Nixon's first was his call to “lower our voices.” This wasn't designed to be memorable; against a backdrop of bitter, often violent, domestic discord, the phrase was part of an extended plea for a return to civility in which he argued, for example, that 'we cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another -- until we speak quietly enough so that our words can be heard as well as our voices." A piece of advice, incidentally, which might profitably be heeded today. Back to the question index... Gail Peters, Cinncinati, OH: Is it better for a speech to be long or short? Why? Ted Sorensen, speech writer for President Kennedy responds: A short speech is more easily understood and remembered, more likely to be carefully and concisely written, and less likely to contain unnecessary points or verbiage. Particularly in an inaugural address, less is always more. Ray Price, speech writer for President Nixon responds: Within reason, at least, short is better than long. Short takes a lot more discipline than long; it's a lot easier to write long, but it's more of a service to the audience to eliminate what's unnecessary, and generally more effective to distill the argument to its essence. I'm convinced that this is truer today than ever, simply because people's attention spans keep getting shorter. Back in the 19th century, before television and other such distractions, political oratory was a favorite form of public entertainment, and speakers could transfix audiences for hours. Now the sound-bite has become so much the norm that except in a few quarters like the NewsHour it's hard to hold an audience for a serious discussion. This is too bad. A lot of the must crucial issues today can't be understood except in their complexities, which often take a lengthy and sophisticated elaboration to make clear. Yet politicians risk being either pilloried or ignored if they're found guilty of committing a thought that doesn't fit into a sound-bite or a snappy one-sentence lead. If anyone still searches for the real threats to our democratic system, this is one of them. Back to the question index...

The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
	Program Support From:
About Us Feedback Subscriptions/Feeds Privacy Copyright © 1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.