Sordid vs. Sociopathic

For speechwriters, every industry has downsides. From what type of professional merde do you insist on being spared?

Olaf(upon what were once knees)

does almost ceaselessly repeat

โ€œthere is some shit I will not eatโ€

โ€”e.e. cummings

If poltiical speechwriting can be sordid, and corporate speechwriting is sometimes sociopathic. So suggest two speechwriters in separate stories this week.

The sordid story.

In a Weekly Standard review of an ebook published a couple years ago on the rise and fall of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, former Sanford speechwriter Barton Swaim wrote, โ€œThe trajectory of Mark Sanford’s political lifeโ€”congressman from South Carolina, two-term governor of the state, Tea Party hero and potential presidential contender, blubbering fool and national joke, and now congressman againโ€”just begs to be put into a book.โ€

Apparently, Swaim gave in, and wrote a book of his own: The Speechwriter: A Brief Education in Politics is a โ€œfictionalโ€ work, which promises โ€œan intimate and hilarious look inside the spin room of the modern politician: a place where ideals are crushed, English is mangled, people are humiliated, and the opportunity for humor is everywhere โ€ฆ The story of a band of believers who attach themselves to this sort of ambitious narcissist โ€ฆ A funny and candid introduction to the world of politics, where press statements are purposefully nonsensical, grammatical errors are intentional, and better copy means more words.โ€

A number of political pundits have given it good blurbs, including Primary Colors author Joe Klein, who said, โ€œโ€œThis is the truest book Iโ€™ve read about politics in some time, hilarious and sordid and wonderfully written.โ€

Itโ€™s out in July.

The sociopathic story.

As weird as political speechwriting can be, former Vice President Gore speechwriter Bob Lehrman vastly prefers it to corporate work, as he explains in a lively interview with an Australian magazine, Future Perfect.

โ€œIn the 1980s I wrote for Texaco,โ€ Lehrman recalls painfully.

I had to write something attacking gasoholโ€”gasoline made from grain. I did. But they never used it. Six months later, my boss said, โ€œBob, rewrite that gasohol piece. But now weโ€™re for it.โ€ I asked why. He told me weโ€™d gotten a big contract to produce gasohol with a partner. I went back to my office, talked with the same engineer Iโ€™d worked with beforeโ€”and did what they wanted. Does that tell you why someone who was passionate about ideas wouldnโ€™t like corporate life?

Meanwhile, Lerhman found political speechwriting to be idealisticโ€”and not just by comparison:

People in politics arenโ€™t cynical at all. With good reason. Democratsโ€”my sideโ€”mostly hated the war in Iraq, wanted health insurance for everyone, supported same-sex marriage, supported raising the minimum wage and closing tax loopholes for the rich. Republicans wereโ€”mostlyโ€”on the other side of all those issues. Isnโ€™t that worth working your ass off? And Republicans feel as passionately on the other side. They work just as hard. Thatโ€™s why Iโ€™ve always loved politics. The work is for something worth doingโ€”even if what you write doesnโ€™t change the world. I mean, youโ€™re part of a team. Letโ€™s say youโ€™re a marking back on a soccer team. Do you have to score to think it was worth going all out?

Whatโ€™s your favorite speechwriting arenaโ€”from what type of professional merde do you insist on being spared? โ€”DM

Leave a Reply

Download Whitepaper

Thank you for your interest. Please enter your email address to view the report.