“I hope you have a notebook where you take down anecdotes,” William Safire told me the first time we met. I muttered something about how, on Bill Clinton’s speechwriting team, we had several researchers who compiled loose-leaf binders with stories about people who’d met the president, told him about their problems, or thanked him for proposing policies that would improve their lives.
Safire looked down on me through his horn-rim bifocals with an expression that said “shmuck.”
“I don’t mean anecdotes for speeches — I mean anecdotes for the book you’re going to write when you leave,” he said. I may have muttered that nowadays someone would subpoena a notebook with White House anecdotes. But the former Nixon speechwriter — who often boasted that no wordsmiths were ever indicted in the Watergate scandal — wouldn’t accept that excuse. “Call me when you’ve written your resignation letter and your book proposal,” Safire added.
Safire, who died on September 27, served as mentor and occasional tormentor to several generations of presidential speechwriters — a job title that he and his colleagues in the Nixon administration were the first to publicly proclaim. While almost every president relied on advisers to draft at least some of his speeches, those from Franklin D. Roosevelt through Lyndon Johnson disguised their speechwriters under loftier titles such as “counselor” or simply “special assistant.” In fact, many presidents’ speechwriters, such as Theodore Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., during the Kennedy Administration, really were policy advisers. Richard Nixon was the first to create an “office of speechwriting,” which included the pugnacious Pat Buchanan (who had written editorials for the St. Louis Globe Democrat), the statesmanlike Ray Price (who had been editorial page editor for the New York Herald Tribune) and Safire, who had been a publicist in New York.
For all his failings, Nixon appreciated public rhetoric and understood writers. He developed working relationships with each of his speechwriters and made assignments based on their views and skills. The conservative Buchanan wrote the stump speeches that roused the rightwing base. The moderate Price crafted the presidential addresses that tried to appeal to elite opinion-makers. The ideologically indeterminate Safire was assigned an equally daunting task: explaining complex economic issues, such as wage-price controls and international currency exchange rates, to regular people.
Nixon knew his man. Safire’s greatest public passion was for language that enlightened and entertained everyday Americans. In his second career as a New York Times columnist, historical novelist, TV commentator, and, above all, a language maven, Safire explored the evolution of everyday expressions. Seeing himself as a champion of a craft whose first commandment is “a passion for anonymity,” Safire founded a club of current and former White House speechwriters, the Judson Welliver Society. The group was named after Warren Harding’s ghostwriter who was placed on the federal payroll with the unprepossessing title of “literary clerk.”
Attending these speechwriters meetings can be a study in the occupational sociology of aging professionals, most of whom have already done their most important work. Some carry the dignity of their proximity to history; others have ascended to media celebrity; most are still struggling to earn their livings, albeit with the advantage that they can tell colleagues about the time that their President took them aside and praised the toast they’d written for the prime minister of Portugal.
Safire himself, for all his own accomplishments, still seemed the wordsmith-as-working-stiff. Tall, stooped, with his collar unbuttoned and tie askew, he had the mannerisms of a fast-talking, street-smart New Yorker. His loyalties were fierce, but his views were eclectic. Years after Watergate, he would defend Nixon by appending the suffix “gate” to every ensuing presidential scandal, major or minor, real or imagined. In his columns about the Middle East, he would channel and champion Ariel Sharon. But, as a teenager in New York, he had also admired the oratory of the radical East Harlem Congressman, Vito Marcantonio (whom Nixon had mendaciously linked to Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, his early Democratic opponents for a seat in Congress). Safire was also a fierce advocate of civil liberties and eclectic on economic issues. And he voted for Clinton in 1992 before “gating” him for the next eight years.
I can hardly claim to have been a confidante of Safire’s (and I emphatically deny having been a source), but he did take me out twice for lunch (corned beef sandwiches at Loeb’s deli, near the Times’ Washington bureau). It turned out we had gone to the same high school, Bronx Science, and had turned to writing because we couldn’t do calculus or lab work.
On Labor Day weekend in 1993, Safire called me at home to learn why Clinton’s radio speech that Saturday, which I had written, included the exhortation “Forward together” (apparently a favorite phrase of Nixon’s, although I had hoped that it would echo Walter Reuther). “Was Clinton going to keep using that phrase,” Safire asked. “Probably not,” I responded, although who knew what Clinton (whom Safire knew to be a textual deviate) would say.
For his part, Safire authored one of the most influential presidential Labor Day addresses. Concerned about winning working class voters in the 1972 election, Nixon asked Safire to spend much of August 1971 traveling the country, talking to people about their jobs. In his 1971 Labor Day address about “the work ethic,” Nixon stoked resentments against welfare programs but also spoke of the need to provide workers with training and re-training, reward employees who learn new skills, and ensure that new technologies humanize rather than merely mechanize workplaces. This speech led to visionary reports about “work in America” by the departments of Labor and of Health, Education and Welfare that, in turn, inspired the growth of employee involvement and quality of work-life programs in many industries. Retaining his interest in work-life years later, Safire advised me that, in this uncertain economy where workers have to, or choose to, change jobs more often than in the past, the labor movement would do well to promise not “security” but “portability” – health and pension benefits, training and credentialing, that workers can take with them from job to job.
But when it came to Democratic presidents, Safire, appropriately, was a critic, not a counselor. Once over corned beef and rye, I asked Safire how Clinton could explain some complex economic issue. “No freebies,” he replied, always the street-smart New Yorker.
Thanks, anyway, Mr. Safire.
David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992-1994. He is a principal at the Podesta Group and author of “Love the Work, Hate the Job: Why America’s Best Workers Are Unhappier than Ever” (Wiley, 2008).
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
David Kusnet: how appropriate for you to have written this eulogy. It is well crafted, entertaining, insightful, and fair but kind. A fitting ode to a Master Writer. Thanks.
During those tumultuous years of the Nixon administration Safire was straight as an arrow and never wavered on where he stood. Those of us then young who felt rage over the whole matter and how Nixon was treated-- NOW EVEN JOHN DEAN HAS DECIDED AFTER YEARS OF RESEARCH THAT NIXON HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BREA-IN-- would find in Safire a strange kindness but one that insisted "don't slouch and keep your head up." He was always of even temper and gently sarcastic. This eased a lot of pain and fear in those days when Communism looked a lot more menacing than it does today. From then on I only got to read him and watch him on TV. Dignity, profundity and subtlety were art forms in his words and demeanor.
When you're not a Jew you never know if those Jewish mentors who really mentor you here and there with great wisdom, caring and encouragement, urging you not to cave in the face of adversity, anger and fear, really regard you as one of their own. But when you fall, you see in their concern over if you hurt yourself an adoption that I had never known anywhere else. As a refugee child I often did not have an immediate family and never an extended one growing up. But Jews like Safire were the "uncles" that made the pain and loneliness of always being a foreigner turn into a feeling: OK, you're one of us now, what have you to contribute? How much I came to love these old sages-- of which he was a giant-- can be felt in the wrenching pain I felt when recently in conflict with the neocons. I'd always be wondering if Safire would approve. Let there be a lesson for us all in his passing: God allows us rare gems only for a short time, relatively speaking, and we must do all we can to expose our children to them so that these gems become models from whom we template replacements to guide the next generation. When we lost Safire we lost a rabbi for us all and all I can now do is tremble a little at how fast age turns into a finale and the survivors are left to themselves to age on devoid of the stones holding them straight and solid in the ground. We must honor Safire by asking ourselves: can I be one like him?
As someone fourteen months younger than Safire who started reading his NYT language column back somewhere around the beginning of time, over the intervening years I was several times puzzled and surprised by what David has so beautifully described as Safire's "ideological indeterminacy". [Which is a ?nice? way of saying that during the Nixon years I all too often sort of knee-jerk style thought of him as Someone On The Other Side (from me, on various issues).] For me it was a wonderful homecoming when his language columns started reappearing at NYT, and many a recent Sunday I increasingly comforted myself that if news facts and reporting styles more and more threatened to overwhelm or discourage either my mind or my spirits, I could always look forward to "On Language" to give me a Sunday boost.
In the spirit of his close attention to words and in a somewhat ?curmudgeonly? style he might have sympathised with: Could anyone here help me with something that's really been bugging me for quite a while? How about a general movement to reconsider the casual (and by now almost ubiquitous) usage in general parlance of the word "passion"? It does seem to me a pity that a word of such earlier (if I may) _dimension_ of meaning is growing so dwarfed.
Could we have a Thesaurus Movement?
[BTW: Did any Safire loyalists happen to notice the lovely discrete ending days note at the bottom of Safire's NYT language column? It said Safire "is on hiatus". Don't you think he would have loved that?! :-)]
marte hall
Yes, Marte, I did notice that. He died that sunday, so it was too late to "fix" it.