Nib #80 Jimmy Carter’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Speech

You may not like the serial comma, but your readers will. And that should be all that matters.

Never write just to write. Every composition should have a purpose. And writers should have that purpose clear in their heads before they start writing, when they are writing, and while they revise and edit their writing. This goes for every kind of writing — and every kind of purpose. If, for instance, you’re asked to write a fundraising appeal, your goal is to raise money. It’s not to edify or entertain or impress — except insofar as those things open your audience’s wallets. If you’re writing to persuade, then persuade. If to entertain, then entertain. If to inform or inspire, then inform or inspire. Don’t have any other agenda. If you’re writing for someone else — a boss or client or organization — don’t smuggle in your two cents. Don’t try to put your spin on someone else’s pitch. Know your audience, know your purpose, and serve both. Even if you’re writing a story or poem you’ll never publish, focus on rendering characters, plots, or images as perfectly as you can. Even if you’re journaling for no reason other than to develop your skills, that’s a purpose too. In writing, as in life, begin and persevere with the end in mind. Focus and discipline don’t stifle self-expression; they sharpen it. Until next week… keep writing!

In the first three parts of his February speech to the Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance asserted his thesis ( Nib #76 ), told his origin story ( Nib #77 ), and laid out the stakes of European elites’ increasing discomfort with democratic values ( Nib #79 ). Traditional rhetorical structure says Part IV is where advocates — like Vance — should turn from windup to pitch, from framing their argument to filling in the frame. As soon as Vance finishes with broad speculations about Europe’s future, he should focus in on one issue or policy. Does he? “And of all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration.” Right on schedule, the speech’s next ten paragraphs are about Europe’s migration crisis: “Today almost one-in-five people living in this country [Germany] moved here from abroad… “The number of immigrants who entered the EU from non-EU countries doubled between 2021 and 2022 alone. And, of course, it’s gotten much worse since… “It’s the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent… “No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.” See how this structure strengthens Vance’s argument. An immigration restrictionist arguing for immigration restrictions is hardly headline news. But by framing the issue as a proxy for European governments’ anti-democratic elitism, Vance puts a much sharper edge on an otherwise unexceptional message. This way, Vance’s speech is not about the controversial political issue of immigration. Rather, it uses immigration to illustrate his broader case for democratic populism. Vance’s frame enables him to criticize European elites not for disagreeing with him and President Trump — a weak position — but for subverting their own constituents’ sovereignty — a much stronger position. This makes Vance’s attack more sophisticated, effective, and pointed — while also more polite and palatable to his European audience. That’s the power of traditional rhetorical structure. Until next week… keep writing!

How smart, young writers can overcome their handicap.

How did the Vice President "sell the stakes" in Europe?

This Independence Day, a reminder to writers everywhere that the greatest nation in the history of the world was founded with an essay. If you haven't read it in a while, it's worth the five minutes. Good writing really can change the world. Happy Fourth — and God Bless America! In Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! Until next week... keep writing!

Last week’s Nib presented the five parts of classical rhetorical structure in one convenient speechwriting cheat sheet. For the next few Nibs, we’ll see what that structure looks like in practice, with a close reading of the most talked about speech of the year (so far!): Vice President J.D. Vance’s February remarks to the Munich Security Conference. Vance’s speech made headlines on both sides of the Atlantic for its stringent criticism of our European allies’ retreat from free speech and democracy. (You can watch the speech here and read the full text here .) Pundits have understandably focused on the substance and strategy of Vance’s speech. Aspiring speechwriters should focus instead on its structure — because the speech’s framing is one of the reasons it had such an impact. Let’s start with Part I: The Introduction.  Remember, the purpose of a speech’s intro is to grab the audience’s attention. The best way to do this is usually with a clear, direct statement of the speech’s thesis. By announcing up front the problem the speaker wants to highlight, the solution he’s proposing, or both, a good intro simultaneously makes a speech more persuasive and the audience more persuadable. Did Vance? Well, the vice president opens his remarks with 300 words of pleasantries. That feels like a lot. On the other hand, it was a long speech. In Munich, Vance was technically his audience’s guest. And he knew that in a few minutes he’d be ripping them. There was also some breaking news about a terrorist attack that required some sensitive attention, too. So in this case, the longer-than-normal windup was appropriate. Notice, though: once Vance gets into his formal remarks, he goes all-in: “But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it's important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values -- values shared with the United States of America.” Boom. No hedging. No bank shots. Right out of the shoot, Vance unequivocally tells his audience — European leaders, the U.S. media, etc. — exactly what this speech is going to be about. Task #1 is accomplished: he has their attention. The lesson for aspiring speechwriters here is simple: resist the urge to ease into your argument. Don’t fumfer around. It’s not disarming; it’s annoying. One of the greatest signs of respect a speaker can show his audience is to not waste their time. “Yesterday, December 7, 1941…” “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen…” “If we are mark’d to die, we are enow / To do our country loss; and if to live, / The fewer men, the greater share of honour.” You only a have few seconds to win your audience’s attention. Don’t waste them on throat-clearing. Sentence one, paragraph one: light the candle. Clearly announce your intention so that you can then get into the narrative of your argument — where the persuasive process really begins. Next Nib, we’ll look at Part II of Vance’s speech: The Beginning of the Story. Until next week… keep writing!

Last week’s Nib presented the five parts of classical rhetorical structure in one convenient speechwriting cheat sheet. For the next few Nibs, we’ll see what that structure looks like in practice, with a close reading of the most talked about speech of the year (so far!): Vice President J.D. Vance’s February remarks to the Munich Security Conference. Vance’s speech made headlines on both sides of the Atlantic for its stringent criticism of our European allies’ retreat from free speech and democracy. (You can watch the speech here and read the full text here .) Pundits have understandably focused on the substance and strategy of Vance’s speech. Aspiring speechwriters should focus instead on its structure — because the speech’s framing is one of the reasons it had such an impact. Let’s start with Part I: The Introduction.  Remember, the purpose of a speech’s intro is to grab the audience’s attention. The best way to do this is usually with a clear, direct statement of the speech’s thesis. By announcing up front the problem the speaker wants to highlight, the solution he’s proposing, or both, a good intro simultaneously makes a speech more persuasive and the audience more persuadable. Did Vance? Well, the vice president opens his remarks with 300 words of pleasantries. That feels like a lot. On the other hand, it was a long speech. In Munich, Vance was technically his audience’s guest. And he knew that in a few minutes he’d be ripping them. There was also some breaking news about a terrorist attack that required some sensitive attention, too. So in this case, the longer-than-normal windup was appropriate. Notice, though: once Vance gets into his formal remarks, he goes all-in: “But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it's important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values -- values shared with the United States of America.” Boom. No hedging. No bank shots. Right out of the shoot, Vance unequivocally tells his audience — European leaders, the U.S. media, etc. — exactly what this speech is going to be about. Task #1 is accomplished: he has their attention. The lesson for aspiring speechwriters here is simple: resist the urge to ease into your argument. Don’t fumfer around. It’s not disarming; it’s annoying. One of the greatest signs of respect a speaker can show his audience is to not waste their time. “Yesterday, December 7, 1941…” “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen…” “If we are mark’d to die, we are enow / To do our country loss; and if to live, / The fewer men, the greater share of honour.” You only a have few seconds to win your audience’s attention. Don’t waste them on throat-clearing. Sentence one, paragraph one: light the candle. Clearly announce your intention so that you can then get into the narrative of your argument — where the persuasive process really begins. Next Nib, we’ll look at Part II of Vance’s speech: The Beginning of the Story. Until next week… keep writing!

If you’re ever asked to write or give a speech — and you don’t know how — here’s where you start.