�鶹ԭ��

The great speakers of our time are the ones who had great partnerships with speechwriters. At least that was the perspective of some of the most respected political speechwriters in the nation at a recent panel discussion presented by the American Democracy Project at �鶹ԭ�� and NBC 10.

Panelists were:

• Sarada Peri, special assistant to the president and senior presidential speechwriter to President Barack Obama.
• Parag Mehta, chief of staff to the U.S. Surgeon General.
• Steve Rabin, senior advisor in the Office of Communications for NASA.
• Michael Smith, special assistant to former Gov. Edward DiPrete and two former �鶹ԭ�� presidents.

Titled “Political Speechwriters: A Look Behind the Scenes,” the Oct. 17 forum explored the unique and intimate relationship between speechwriter and speaker. The event was moderated by Katie Davis, NBC 10 investigative reporter, who began by asking if speechwriters need to develop a personal relationship with their principals?

“It’s different for every speechwriter,” Rabin replied. For instance,  Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, only met with Reagan a few times, yet wrote “some of the best work of the 20th century,” he said.

For Peri, “It’s not so much trying to figure out how someone speaks; it’s trying to figure out how someone thinks. If you can do that, then you can probably write their speech,” she said, adding, “President Obama is the best writer, editor and speaker a speechwriter could work for, and he is pretty clear on what he wants to say.”

Other topics addressed included how political speeches are constructed and negotiated between writers and their principals, and the effect of social media on speechwriting.

Mehta noted that speechwriters are not just writing for people in the room, they’re writing for the newspapers and the media coverage afterward. Mehta always asks the speechwriter two questions before a speech is delivered to the principal: “What pullout quote do you want to see in the newspaper tomorrow? And which line would you Tweet using only 140 characters?” because it forces speechwriters to figure out what their main message is.

Rabin isn’t an advocate of focusing on sound bites because it results in speeches that “sound like they came out of a can.” He said, “Ninety-five percent of political speeches are horrible because too often politicians do not sound like they’re connected to the words that they’re saying. It’s like watching a play where really lousy actors have memorized the words but have no feeling for what the words mean.”

Davis made note of the television series “West Wing,” and asked if speechwriters actually get involved in making policy.

Three of the panelists, replied “No,” but Smith had a different experience. He said, “Because many of the proposals by the governor or president had not been thoroughly thought out and decisions needed to be made by a certain deadline, I did play a major role in the development of policy. And these proposals don’t come in a fancy wrapped package. It’s more like a box with parts that you’ve got to put together.” Smith added that the speechwriters’ influence is also felt in what goes in and what is taken out of a speech.

Ultimately, what makes for a great speech?

“A good speech is essentially a good argument,” said Peri. “A great speech, in my view, is when a speaker with credibility delivers a well-argued, well-crafted message to meet a particular moment that only that speaker with that speech can meet. And that’s true at any level, even if it’s a classroom speech or a toast at a wedding. Find your one message and deliver it as authentically as you can.”

The American Democracy Project (ADP) at �鶹ԭ�� is an affiliate of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities in partnership with the New York Times. The purpose of ADP is to foster political and civic engagement in higher education. Of the more than 220 colleges and universities in the country participating in the ADP, �鶹ԭ�� is the only participant in Rhode Island.