After-Dinner Speaking: What Michelle Wolf Did Wrong, and How to Do It Better

White House, US government photo

Michelle Wolf's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner got me thinking about after-dinner speeches. I taught and judged after-dinner speakers when I was a college speech and debate coach, and, of course, I have heard plenty of after-dinner speeches. If Wolf were my student, I'd have given her speech a bad grade, but not for the reasons that we see in the press.

After-dinner speaking is a type of ceremonial or epideictic speech. Aristotle said that the purpose of such a speech is praise or blame. Speeches of praise are, of course, much more common. The first after-dinner speech I ever heard was a speech praising Protestant reformer Martin Luther. I do not recall that the speaker told jokes, but he did give a good speech.

Michelle Wolf gave a speech of blame. That was OK. Her speech was full of sexual jokes and personal attacks. That was not entirely OK. Some of her attacks were well-deserved: Donald Trump and his administration have repeatedly attacked the press, and seem to attack the press most harshly when the press reports the truth. It was right and proper at a White House Correspondents Dinner to speak out against Donald Trump's conduct, and the conduct of his staff. There is, however, a right way and a wrong way to do it, and Wolf chose the wrong way.

So, here are some suggestions for giving a good after-dinner speech:

1. A good after-dinner speech needs to talk about a serious purpose. Remember what I said about Aristotle? The speaker should either praise or blame something. A speech of praise is usually better. More positive. The speaker should tells us something good about a person, place, or thing that can inspire us. At the White House Correspondents Dinner, the speaker could praise a great journalist of the past or present. The speaker could explain what that person did that was good, and how other journalists can follow the honored person's example. Or she could have praised an honest President from the past. The audience would have gotten the point.

2. Speeches of blame have their place. Given President Trump's hostile attitude toward the press, which leads him to call any report he does not like "fake news," a speech criticizing President Trump was in order.

3. The speaker needs to prove her points. Bald accusations never do the job. Michelle Wolf did that wrong when she criticized Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in what turned out to be her most controversial point:

What Wolf said: “I think she's very resourceful, like she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye. Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's lies.”

What Wolf could have said: "She has misled the White House correspondents one time too many. She wrongly said that the Obama administration was not vetting immigrants. She falsely said that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, when Chicago actually has open carry. When President Trump wrongly said that the United States is the highest taxed country in the world, Huckabee Sanders repeatedly flat-out denied that Trump had said what he was on record to have said." 

Then, and only then, Wolf might lighten things up by telling her joke about Huckabee Sanders' dishonesty. The joke would have worked better, because it rose from a foundation. Even a humorous after-dinner speech can prove its points. Ceremonial speakers have been offering proof for centuries, and there is no reason that Wolf could not have proven her accusations. If she had, her critics would have become much quieter. 

4. Humor is fine in an after-dinner speech, and, in fact, audiences expect it. But the humor should be tasteful. Jokes about people's sexual or bathroom behavior do not belong in a formal dinner. People want to relax and have fun. A wise speaker will save dirty jokes for smoke-filled nightclubs full of drunken patrons. For my part, although many of Wolf's jokes were badly out of place, I did not think that her joke about Huckabee Sanders was totally out of line. Huckabee Sanders has told many falsehoods (see the links above) and she had it coming. But crude humor did not fit the occasion, which should have been more dignified.

5. A good after-dinner speaker always, and I mean always, draws a moral lesson from the presentation. Wolf ended her speech by cursing. Instead, she could have drawn any number of morals:

Possible moral #1: Wolf could have ended her speech by saying, "A democracy depends on trust among the government, the people, and the press. The government has broken that trust. It's time to make repairs."

Possible moral #2: Instead, Wolf could have called the audience to action, like this: "The White House correspondents need to insist that the White House speak more honestly, and the White House needs restore trust. The White House has to stop saying things that are not only false but ridiculous, and the White House needs to stop attacking the press for reporting the truth."

Possible moral #3: Or Wolf could have been simple and bold, like this: "In an era of fake news, the White House needs to stop attacking the truth."

That is, the speech can be funny, and probably should be funny, but needs to end on a serious note.

I do not know whether anybody connected with the White House correspondents will read my blog. But if they do, here is my suggestion: let the keynote speaker at the White House Correspondents Dinner be a journalist, not a raunchy comedian. The event has gotten out of control, and it is time to get things back in order.

Here is a very good website published by Gustavus Adolphus College about how to give an after-dinner speech. Gustavus Adolphus College has for many years done a great job of teaching people how to give speeches. I judged their students at speech contests in the 1970's, and I'm glad to see them continue their tradition of excellence. 

To post comments, log onto your Google account. All tasteful non-commercial comments will be posted regardless of your political views. 

Michelle Wolfe versus Donald Trump: Who Was Worse? The 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

Many conservatives were outraged by Michelle Wolf’s tasteless satirical speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Let’s compare it with President Donald Trump’s angry speech the same day at a Michigan rally. Do conservatives really have a right to be outraged? And what is the value of satire?

Wolf’s jokes had a lot of bite. Let’s look at some of Wolf’s jokes (I’ll skip the R-rated ones):  

“I’m here to make jokes, I have no agenda, I’m not trying to get anything accomplished, so everyone that’s here from Congress, you should feel right at home.”

"It is kind of crazy the Trump campaign was in contact with Russia when the Hillary campaign wasn't even in contact with Michigan. It's a direct flight. It's so close.”

“Mr. President, I don’t think you’re very rich. Like, you might be rich in Idaho, but in New York you’re doing fine.”

“Trump is so broke he looks for foreign oil in Don, Jr.’s hair.”

“He loves white nationalists, which is a weird term for a Nazi.”

“I know a lot of you are very anti-abortion you know unless it’s the one you got for your secret mistress. Somehow values can waver.”

On being 32 years old, Wolf said: “Ten years too young to host this event and 20 years too old for Roy Moore.” Moore, of course, is a Republican politician accused of dating underage girls.

Wolf attacked White House press official Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “I think she's very resourceful, like she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye. Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's lies.”

“Kellyanne Conway has the perfect last name for what she does: Conway.”

Funny? Not if you’re her target. Justified?  Maybe. Huckabee Sanders has not done well on PolitiFact, which has never rated her statements as True or Mostly True—or even Half True. Or even Mostly True. Just False and Pants on Fire.

Trump’s nasty Michigan rally. President Trump skipped the White House Correspondents’ dinner, and instead held a rally for his supporters in Michigan. He boasted of his accomplishments, which was to be expected, and dished out plenty of insults of his own:

Mr. Trump attacked former FBI Director James Comey: “He's a liar and a leaker. I did you a great favor when I fired this guy.”

He also attacked “fake news” and “fake sources.”

He asked: “Any Hispanics in the room? . . . not too many. Eh, that’s all right.” He continued: “In all fairness, Kanye West gets it.”

Defending himself against charges of having worked with Russians during the election campaign, Trump retorted: “Sources don’t exist. These people are very dishonest people, many of them. Fake news. Very dishonest.”

Attacking Senator Jon Tester, Trump said: “I know things about Tester that I could say too. And if I said them he’d never be elected again.”

Now, to his credit, Mr. Trump did not tell any sexual jokes. But he said some very vile things. The truth of much of what he said was questionable at best, and he wasn’t funny.

There’s nothing new about satire, and satire can be very nasty. Let’s go back to ancient Rome and remember Juvenal’s satires. Juvenal said, for example: “Let each take the price of his own blood, and turn as pale as a man who has trodden upon a snake bare-footed, or of one who awaits his turn to orate before the altar at Lugdunum.” Not nice.

So, my comments:

1.     Wolf’s speech was over-the-top. But she got lots of attention, and many of her barbs were, although tasteless, also defensible. Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway do tell lies. Lots of lies. Many Republicans did support Roy Moore. Humor is a good way to bring people back to some degree of moral sense.

2.      Wolf said things to people’s faces. Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway were in the room. Mr. Trump said things at a rally behind people’s backs. He lacked the courage to confront the correspondents face-to-face. 

3.      The White House Correspondents’ Dinner has gone downhill. Compare this year’s event with Ronald Reagan’s wonderful speech. That kind of class seems like a lifetime ago.

We live in an era in which truth takes second place to political loyalty. Trump went to a friendly crowd so he could hide from criticism. Wolf dished it out. Did the world need to hear what Wolf said?

In general, conservatives have criticized Wolf’s tasteless but truthful speech, but ignored Mr. Trump’s barbed falsehoods. You can’t have it both ways. Some liberals complained too. But satire isn’t supposed to be pleasant. For my own part, I would have preferred a much less offensive speech, but I admit that Wolf made her points.

Did the country need a speech as volatile as Wolf’s? Or was it too much? That’s hard to say, isn’t it? 

To post comments, log onto your Google account. All tasteful comments will be posted regardless of your political views. 

President Macron's Speech to Congress: Reminding the USA of Its Traditions

President Macron and President Trump

In his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, French President Emmanuel Macron reviewed the long history of  French-American cooperation. He reminded Congress about the democratic values that the United States has long championed. This leads us to a question: does the American president still lead the free world? Or have the leaders of France and Germany now taken that leadership from us? Not because they want it, but because American leaders have abandoned their traditions?

Why is tradition good? Let us suppose there are three ways to make a decision: you can make a decision at random (for example, by throwing dice or flipping a coin), you can make a decision by giving it careful thought, or you can rely on time-tested tradition. (This explanation is inspired by Boyd and Richerson's outstanding book, Culture and the Evolutionary Process.)

All of these methods have their place. As the great conservative writer Richard Weaver pointed out in his book The Ethics of Rhetoric, liberals and radicals tend to make decisions by looking at circumstances and cause-and-effect, while conservatives look to fundamental principles and definitions. In other words, to make things simple, liberals like to think things through, while conservatives like to rely on things that are timeless.

Tradition is a very good way to make many decisions. No test is more powerful, or less forgiving, than the test of time. The problem is that many conservatives today become confused about what tradition is. All too often, conservatives invent traditions that are not real. I published an article a few years ago pointing out that the gun control debate has been influenced by a collection of fake Founding Fathers quotations, in which some conservatives pretend that the nation's Founders advocated a radical pro-gun position. Since the Founders did not, the only way to maintain this position is to misrepresent what they said. Similarly, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia, who was motivated by his theory of originalism but poorly informed about the Constitution's actual origins, has been accused of misrepresenting the traditional relationship between the president and federal prosecutors. When we forget our traditions, falsehoods fill the void.

Macron reviewed our traditions. So, as I pointed out yesterday, President Macron carefully reviewed the long history of democratic values, values that the United States has been spreading across the world for centuries. Here are some examples of what he said:

"The American and French people have had a rendezvous with freedom."

"Freedom is a call to think and to love. It is a call to our will. That is why in times of peace, France and the United States were able to forge unbreakable bonds from the grips of painful memories."

Macron warned: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We pass it to our children; it must be fought for, protected, handed on for them to do the same. This is an urgent reminder, indeed, because now, going beyond our bilateral ties, beyond our very special relationship, Europe and the United States must face together the global challenges of the century. And we cannot take for granted our history. At the core--we have to succeed, facing these challenges, and we cannot succeed by forfeiting our principles and our history." Was he warning about the authoritarianism of the far right, a far right that often supports President Trump?

Macron pointed out that Civil Rights for the races and equal rights for women have long-standing traditions in both France and the United States, and must not be forsaken. He reminded Congress that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s bust stood in the Capitol Rotunda.

Implicitly rejecting President Donald Trump's "America First" philosophy, Macron said that "Today, the international community needs to step up our game and build the 21st century world order based on the perennial principles we established together after World War II: the rule of law. Fundamental values which we secured peace for 70 years ago are now questioned by urgent issues that require joint action."

Macron left conservatives befuddled. As I noted in my last post, conservatives have reacted in a way that has been muted or controversial. After a flurry of tweets about President's Macron's state visit, President Trump's Twitter feed has gone silent about Macron's speech. Why? 

Congress is dominated by conservatives today, and Macron spoke entirely for conservative principles. Yet, American conservatives did not seem to like his speech. Why not?

First, Macron opposed American unilateralism, warned of the dangers of climate change ("Let us face it. There is no planet B"), supported Civil Rights, and spoke in favor of the international order that the United States created after World War II. Mr. Trump and his allies, for the most part, oppose all of these.

Second, however, Macron's arguments were almost unassailable from a conservative viewpoint. That is his arguments arose entirely from tradition. Unlike a more liberal speaker, Macron, who describes himself as a centrist, did not cite facts and figures, expert opinion, scientific studies, cause and effect, or any other of the sorts of policy-oriented arguments that liberals like to make. Instead, he cited the tradition of time-tested principles. A debater would say that he turned the tables on his opponents. Conservatives cannot attack his principles, which were entirely conservative. Conservatives had a great deal of trouble attacking Macron's conclusions, which inescapably arose from his principles. This leaves conservatives only a few choices: they could attack him personally, which seems unwise, or they could sputter in indignation, which seems pointless, or they could ignore him. For the most part, they seem to ignore him.

Can you ignore truth and still be a leader? I do not think so. President Macron gave the United States' leaders a lot to think about. When an "America First" philosophy abandons American leadership, President Macron briefly took over the leadership of the free world, but, doing so he was implicitly asking the United States to regain its leadership role.

Turning the tables on your opponent is a very powerful debate technique. Since conservatives cannot attack their own principles, President Macron's appeal carried great power.

P.S.: Much was made of President Trump dusting a bit of imaginary dandruff from President Macron's jacket. Was this an attempt to establish dominance, to see which of them was the alpha male? If so, Macron's speech settled the issue in his own favor. Content beats form every time. 

P.P.S. President Macron spoke fluently in English, which is his second (third? fourth?) language. Very impressive. 

P.P.S. President Trump's initiatives in Korea would seem to be a good rebuttal to Macron's message. Yet he has not linked the two. Why no? I have no idea.


 Image: White House Flickr