Wednesday, February 25, 2004
STUMPED
Do Over
by David Kusnet
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 02.24.04
[ TNR Online is pleased to introduce David Kusnet, former chief speechwriter to President Clinton, as a regular contributor. Kusnet will write a periodic column called "Stumped," which will examine the rhetoric of the 2004 campaign. ]
Back in the fall of 1993, Bill Clinton began to present his health care plan before a joint session of Congress, looked at the teleprompter, and saw that it was scrolling the text of the speech about his economic plan that he'd delivered that February. Unfazed, he started riffing his health care speech anyway.
Last night, George W. Bush addressed a $1,000-per-person fundraiser for the Republican Governors Association to premiere what his handlers had touted as his new stump speech for the 2004 campaign. But his teleprompter displayed what should have been this year's State of the Union speech--a graceful, upbeat presentation of his record, agenda, and governing philosophy that slashed his rivals with a switchblade disguised as a scalpel.
When it comes to making his case for another term, last night's speech was Dubya's do-over--and this time he got it right. Where his State of the Union speech had been partisan and pedestrian, devoid of what his father called "the vision thing," his new stump speech is both presidential and political; it makes the case for the Bush presidency--and against John Kerry and John Edwards--in forward-thinking, rather than defensive, terms.
It's as if the first MBA president has belatedly reversed a colossal management error. His State of the Union speech read as if the writing assignment had been outsourced to a hack from the Republican National Committee. By contrast, last night's speech read as if it had been assigned to the president's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, a lyrical writer and evangelical Christian with a gift for addressing audiences across the ideological and theological spectrum. Most news coverage reported the speech as a frontal attack on Kerry for the differences between his rhetoric and his voting record. But more than simply attacking his likely opponent, Bush last night rolled out a repertoire of rhetorical techniques that he will almost certainly repeat between now and November:
Let's Not Look at the Record: Unlike Roosevelt in 1936, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996, Bush can't claim that the country's condition has improved on his watch. And, unlike in his State of the Union Speech, he won't use the classic incumbent's appeal: "Do you want to go forward or back?" The America that Bush inherited from Clinton in retrospect appears to have been more Nirvana than nightmare, with nearly full employment, rising wages, and a federal surplus as far as the eye could see. So Bush is casting the choice in 2004 as a matter of philosophy not performance--a choice, as he said last night, "between keeping the tax relief that is moving the economy forward, or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people" and "between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence, or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger."
Underpinning this philosophical choice, at least on the domestic front, is the big idea that was missing from the State of the Union--"the ownership society." While caricaturing the Democrats as favoring costly and coercive government, Bush presented his policies as having the goal of encouraging people and families to save, invest, and accumulate wealth.
Bush's Unique Selling Proposition: Rather than describing Kerry as a left-leaning, commie-loving, Jane Fonda-following, Ted Kennedy clone--he'll let his surrogates do that--Bush is defining the difference between himself and his likely rival as one of decisiveness. Using a skillful light touch, Bush began by observing that the Democratic primaries feature candidates "with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it." And then he added: "And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." By way of contrast, Bush ticked off a litany of international crises that he had addressed, starting with the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that he brings a steady hand in times of danger. Decisiveness will be Bush's unique selling proposition, from his determination to oust the Taliban and Saddam to his consistent emphasis on tax cuts and privatization.
Changing What "Changing the Tone" Means: Bush subtly changed the meaning of one of his most remembered and now most embarrassing promises from his 2000 campaign--that he would "change the tone" in Washington. Back then, the phrase meant less partisan backbiting. Last night, he redefined it to mean tackling big issues with big ideas. Bush's approach has always been to magnify problems and offer super-sized solution--proposing huge tax cuts every year, responding to terrorism by promoting regime change in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan, and promoting the partial privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Whatever the merits of the policies themselves, the strategic advantage of this approach has always been clear: Tackling (or appearing to tackle) big problems and proposing big ideas dispels doubts about Bush's stature, especially in comparison to Clinton, whose command of the issues was never in doubt but who concluded his presidency by offering micro-initiatives on the domestic scene. Pointedly absent last night was any mention of Bush's micro-initiatives, such as discouraging the use of steroids by athletes--although perhaps that was because the former body-builder and current California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was in the room.
Pre-Empting Populism: While the event had its share of K Street influence-peddlers and corporate high-rollers, the president signaled that he will try to preempt populist attacks on his policies. He claimed to have "passed the strongest corporate reforms since Franklin Roosevelt." And, anticipating the prospect that Edwards will be Kerry's running-mate, he made a preemptive attack against trial lawyers and "frivolous lawsuits."
This was the best speech Bush has given since Kerry emerged as the Democratic front-runner. His arguments can be answered, but Kerry or Edwards will need to do more than counter with policy ideas; they will need to explain the philosophical antecedents of their proposals in order to give their candidacies an overarching message. That was exactly what George W. Bush--once again talking like a happy warrior--did last night.
David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992 through 1994. He is a visiting fellow at the Economic Policy Institute and the author of Speaking American: How the Democrats Can Win in the Nineties.
Do Over
by David Kusnet
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 02.24.04
[ TNR Online is pleased to introduce David Kusnet, former chief speechwriter to President Clinton, as a regular contributor. Kusnet will write a periodic column called "Stumped," which will examine the rhetoric of the 2004 campaign. ]
Back in the fall of 1993, Bill Clinton began to present his health care plan before a joint session of Congress, looked at the teleprompter, and saw that it was scrolling the text of the speech about his economic plan that he'd delivered that February. Unfazed, he started riffing his health care speech anyway.
Last night, George W. Bush addressed a $1,000-per-person fundraiser for the Republican Governors Association to premiere what his handlers had touted as his new stump speech for the 2004 campaign. But his teleprompter displayed what should have been this year's State of the Union speech--a graceful, upbeat presentation of his record, agenda, and governing philosophy that slashed his rivals with a switchblade disguised as a scalpel.
When it comes to making his case for another term, last night's speech was Dubya's do-over--and this time he got it right. Where his State of the Union speech had been partisan and pedestrian, devoid of what his father called "the vision thing," his new stump speech is both presidential and political; it makes the case for the Bush presidency--and against John Kerry and John Edwards--in forward-thinking, rather than defensive, terms.
It's as if the first MBA president has belatedly reversed a colossal management error. His State of the Union speech read as if the writing assignment had been outsourced to a hack from the Republican National Committee. By contrast, last night's speech read as if it had been assigned to the president's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, a lyrical writer and evangelical Christian with a gift for addressing audiences across the ideological and theological spectrum. Most news coverage reported the speech as a frontal attack on Kerry for the differences between his rhetoric and his voting record. But more than simply attacking his likely opponent, Bush last night rolled out a repertoire of rhetorical techniques that he will almost certainly repeat between now and November:
Let's Not Look at the Record: Unlike Roosevelt in 1936, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996, Bush can't claim that the country's condition has improved on his watch. And, unlike in his State of the Union Speech, he won't use the classic incumbent's appeal: "Do you want to go forward or back?" The America that Bush inherited from Clinton in retrospect appears to have been more Nirvana than nightmare, with nearly full employment, rising wages, and a federal surplus as far as the eye could see. So Bush is casting the choice in 2004 as a matter of philosophy not performance--a choice, as he said last night, "between keeping the tax relief that is moving the economy forward, or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people" and "between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence, or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger."
Underpinning this philosophical choice, at least on the domestic front, is the big idea that was missing from the State of the Union--"the ownership society." While caricaturing the Democrats as favoring costly and coercive government, Bush presented his policies as having the goal of encouraging people and families to save, invest, and accumulate wealth.
Bush's Unique Selling Proposition: Rather than describing Kerry as a left-leaning, commie-loving, Jane Fonda-following, Ted Kennedy clone--he'll let his surrogates do that--Bush is defining the difference between himself and his likely rival as one of decisiveness. Using a skillful light touch, Bush began by observing that the Democratic primaries feature candidates "with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it." And then he added: "And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." By way of contrast, Bush ticked off a litany of international crises that he had addressed, starting with the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that he brings a steady hand in times of danger. Decisiveness will be Bush's unique selling proposition, from his determination to oust the Taliban and Saddam to his consistent emphasis on tax cuts and privatization.
Changing What "Changing the Tone" Means: Bush subtly changed the meaning of one of his most remembered and now most embarrassing promises from his 2000 campaign--that he would "change the tone" in Washington. Back then, the phrase meant less partisan backbiting. Last night, he redefined it to mean tackling big issues with big ideas. Bush's approach has always been to magnify problems and offer super-sized solution--proposing huge tax cuts every year, responding to terrorism by promoting regime change in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan, and promoting the partial privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Whatever the merits of the policies themselves, the strategic advantage of this approach has always been clear: Tackling (or appearing to tackle) big problems and proposing big ideas dispels doubts about Bush's stature, especially in comparison to Clinton, whose command of the issues was never in doubt but who concluded his presidency by offering micro-initiatives on the domestic scene. Pointedly absent last night was any mention of Bush's micro-initiatives, such as discouraging the use of steroids by athletes--although perhaps that was because the former body-builder and current California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was in the room.
Pre-Empting Populism: While the event had its share of K Street influence-peddlers and corporate high-rollers, the president signaled that he will try to preempt populist attacks on his policies. He claimed to have "passed the strongest corporate reforms since Franklin Roosevelt." And, anticipating the prospect that Edwards will be Kerry's running-mate, he made a preemptive attack against trial lawyers and "frivolous lawsuits."
This was the best speech Bush has given since Kerry emerged as the Democratic front-runner. His arguments can be answered, but Kerry or Edwards will need to do more than counter with policy ideas; they will need to explain the philosophical antecedents of their proposals in order to give their candidacies an overarching message. That was exactly what George W. Bush--once again talking like a happy warrior--did last night.
David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992 through 1994. He is a visiting fellow at the Economic Policy Institute and the author of Speaking American: How the Democrats Can Win in the Nineties.
Comments:
Post a Comment
