Convention Speeches: Another Form of Good Writing

The Democratic Convention last night reminded me that I was once a part-time speechwriter for a hospital administrator and a director of Mexican American studies. Both thought I was really good at it, and I think I could probably have made it--with a break here or two--into serious speechwriting. I love to construct speech patterns, sprinkle some history, make a few jokes and then get into a cadence that drives home the point. I thought Deval Patrick and Julian Castro did a magnificent job yesterday whatever you think of their politics. By the way, Rosie Castro--Julian Castro's mom--and I were friends when younger and she was the one that re-introduced me to the Chicano Movement when I came back from Viet Nam.

Some people ask why most politicians do not write their own speeches. One reason is that it takes a lot of time to put words together and also a lot of practice. I remember in writing the speeches that I did, I would continually rewrite, practice outloud and then try to picture myself standing at the back of the room listening to my speech being given by another. If you can not detach yourself from your words you can't write speeches. For a candidate, CEO or other to write a speech, they have to love to write, to reflect, to understand an audience and laugh at themselves. Most jokes poking fun of the speaker are rarely written by the speakers themselves. Most politicians and leader types rarely know how to laugh at themselves.

Speechwriting like ghostwriting takes a humble demeanor because most people will never known who wrote the speech even though today some speechwriters are celebrities themselves. But can anyone name who helped write Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech? Exactly my point. Or how about John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech, or Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America"?

Speechwriters and ghostwriters find their satisfaction in doing a good job. They also find joy in helping promote their candidate or their causes, and that is why you have liberal, conservative, democrat and republican speechwriters. It is rare that you have one writing for the fellows across the aile.

When I was writing speeches I would check out books from the library on speechmaking, famous speeches and, my favorites, memorable sermons. I was particularly enthralled by Peter Marshall who served as the Chaplain of the Senate. His sermons were so down to earth but so powerful at the same time. As a young boy I use to love to sneak into the chapel of my small Mormon congregation and give what we Mormons call "talks" to empty wooden benches, often emulating Marshall's sermons.

Giving speeches is also about practice and context. And it is only by practicing that you get good at it. When I became a lay bishop most people thought I gave good talks and asked me how I did it. I would simply say "practice, practice and more practice". But it helps if you have something to say--remember passion--which is a crucial part of speechwriting. The famous speeches are anything but fluff. You can't make a speaker or a speech great if there is nothing really important to say. You might be a wordcrafter of the finest order but your speech will fall on deaf ears or be remember only until the lights are turned off. Speechwriters have to believe in something and they have to believe that their candidate--or whoever--actually believes in the same things.

I think my stint as a speechwriter and a  sermon-giver--unlike many Mormon bishops I gave as many sermons as I did talks--made me a better scholar. I find that I quickly get into my grove and I don't give boring presentations. I remember going to Houston a couple of years ago and had to make three presentations in one day. Each was a totally different audience. After the last one a colleague, whom I deeply admire, said that I had given the same story in three different ways. I actually think he was mocking me but I believe it is because most scholars don't know but one speed in giving presentations and they rarely think of audience. They think of what they are going to say and what they want to get across and not who is going to receive it.

Here again, it is all about being a good writer. Writers know their audience and differentiate one group from another. A speechwriter also knows that space, time and interest all play a part in how people respond to a presentation. We all have heard great speeches and great presentations. Most of them seem directed at us. They make us comfortable--or sometimes uncomfortable if that is the point--they inspire us and they motivate us. We also learn even if we hear that which we already know.

Speechwriting is a good way to learn to write. Most good writers read their work outloud to themselves to see if it sounds right. Thus, it stands to reason that hearing someone else read your work is an even better way to find out how good you are. But like all writing, speechwriting is a craft and you have to invest in learning how to do it right. Some people are natural speakers and they can woo a crowd but it is when you read their speeches that you known whether they write well and whether their speeches will have any legacy.
If you didn't see the speeches last night, go back and search for them. I didn't say anything about Michelle Obama's but it was as good as any last night. That woman can talk and boy does she have a good speechwriter.

Do Not Write Advocacy or Prophetic Scholarship

My involvement in the Chicano Movement and the Raza Unida Party was what got me started on my scholarly journey. But while sympathetic and a promoter of Chicano/latino civil rights, I always resisted and felt uncomfortable by what I call advocacy and/or prophetic scholarship. I strongly believe in what I write but I do not feel I have any scholarly authority as a historian to put a conclusion or offer a solution to every historical narrative yet to be played out. This same reluctance should be embraced by other scholars of the social sciences and the humanities.

Most advocacy scholarship is driven by ideology and not research, analysis or even scholarly questions. Its interest is to promote a particular point of view that can only be validated through normally very narrow parameters. Now, there is nothing wrong with ideological writings but they are not scholarship per se. While I accept that none of us can write without advocating something or other, I do believe that we should not invent things outright or act like modern-day prophets who know more than they do.

One disclaimer here is that some scholarly work is meant to be advocated--some genres within sociology, economics, public policy, psychology, etc. But even those who do that type of scholarship should be cautious.

Caution should also be applied to what I call prophetic scholarship which is the type of scholarship in which we ascertain that something will happen because of how we interpret what has happened before.Recently, I had a friend who was waiting for an election to see if his several hundred page predictions would hold. His work ended up depending more on the efficacy of  a political campaign than on the "facts".While valuable--I read the manuscript--I did not consider the work scholarly writing in the best sense, though it might make him the next Karl Marx.

The problem with both advocacy and prophetic scholarly writing is that it is usually based on assumptions that have yet to be tested and it is difficult to test them before they are promoted. Since most of this scholarship is hardly earth-shattering, it is rarely put to a test. And often it is forgotten or, at worse, gives a scholar a reputation of doing shoddy work that is more astrology than scholarship.

When young scholars, in particular, start with advocacy scholarship it usually means they have skipped many a step. It is shameful that too many mentors and too many Ph.D. committees do not hold their students' reigns a little bit tighter. Advocacy scholarship if it is to be written and be presented as scholarship and not just as polemical or intellectual writing must be done when one has proven to know a topic well, to have researched it exhaustively and to have published extensively on it. To do otherwise is to try to pull a fast one on the public.

Does this mean that a brilliant young scholar cannot advocate something and be right--whatever right means--yes, that's probably what I mean. Even when they might get much of it right what they don't get is the process of how things evolve and how they reach the point they did, a crucial element in scholarship. You learn that not just by researching but by reading and writing about it, getting reviewed and criticized, and then responding to critics with more work.

To become a good "advocate" means seeing your own work and saying, "gosh, I coud have done better, or I didn't get it completely right". And doing it over and over again while seeing your ideas tested out over years. That is almost impossible for a young scholar to do in his/her first book, and even more impossible for the old scholar with no books in hand. Scholarship is partly about writing and if you don't write enough or haven't had the time to, you have little to say when you do. Are there exceptions? Yes. Are you one of those? Overwhelmingly the chances are you are not.

As scholars we make assumptions and even offer advice but we should be careful not to advocate what we have not proven ourselves. This is particulary true for the social sciences and humanities. Advocacy and prophetic writing is also a good way to have our work age almost immediately. I know of a scholar whose predictions of world calamity will prove him a prophet or discredit his scholarship within less than a year. Do we really want to be in that situation?

The function of scholarly writing can be to inform, to inspire and motivate, to correct an assumption or to critique, but it rarely works as a road map. There are always exceptions to this rule but they are exceptions which are often quite rare. And they come after years of writing, reflecting and testing out our ideas. When you are there then this doesn't apply to you.