Peter Davis
As special counsel to John F. Kennedy, writer Theodore (Ted) Sorensen wrote
hundreds of speeches and advised Kennedy on various policies. He and Kennedy worked
steadfastly together on the drafts for days at a time. Kennedy would spend hours
dictating his thoughts and Sorensen would meld those ideas into a campaign speech or
into an inauguration or into an address to the nation. It’s no wonder Sorensen would
come to be known as Kennedy’s “intellectual alter ego.”1 Sorensen had a natural talent
with words for expressing ideas with eloquence. His natural ability, combined with
countless hours spent rewriting drafts with Kennedy, marked Sorensen out as one of the
most prominent speechwriters of modern times.2 Sorensen’s stylistic prowess helped him
create speeches that were both moving and memorable. This paper will attempt to define
Ted Sorensen as a stylist by analyzing two of his most important speeches written for
Kennedy: the inaugural address and the Address to the Nation on the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Then, this paper will discuss the possible sources of Sorensen’s speechwriting
style.
Inaugural Address3
Kennedy’s inaugural address was given on January 20th, 1961, during a pretty
“mediocre” time.4 Surprisingly, however, this speech is one of the most remembered in
American history. Almost anyone could complete the phrase, “Ask not what your
country can do for you….” This speech owes it memorability and quotability to
1
Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans (Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc, 2003): 161
John Simkin, “Spartacus Educational”, Biography: Ted Sorensen (2004):
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsorenson.htm
3
Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans (Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc, 2003): 163
4
Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans (Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc, 2003): 163
2
Sorensen’s keen use of metaphor and antithesis, along with a few other stylistic skills that
he employed. Indeed, the first sentence in the body of the speech starts, “We observe
today…” which is an anastrophe, an uncommon placement, of the word “today.”
Continuing in the same sentence is then two antitheses back-to-back: “…symbolizing an
end as well as a beginning – signifying renewal as well as change.” Such an antithesis
placed so early in a speech is both memorable and powerful. Another antithesis is placed,
shortly after, embedded in a series: “…support any friend, oppose any foe.” In fact, the
series plays out almost like a klimax as it ends with a qualifier, “to assure the survival and
the success of liberty.” By being placed before this phrase, the antithesis serves to
strengthen resolution, the “success of liberty.”
Sorensen plugs a few more antitheses throughout the speech, preferably at the end
of a running idea for maximum emphasis. For example, at the end of “To those people in
the huts…” is the sentence, “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it
cannot save the few who are rich.” This is actually a double antithesis, using the
antonyms many / few and poor / rich. But perhaps a better antithesis is a few paragraphs
later where Sorensen writes, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to
negotiate.” Almost an AB/BA antithesis, this phrase also uses anaphora and alliteration
as well. But, still, the absolute best antithesis used in Kennedy’s inaugural address is the
one he is most famous for: “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can
do for your country.” A very strong AB/BA antithesis, placed on its own inside the
speech, so powerful that it almost serves to mute the antithesis that immediately follows
it: “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what
together we can do for the freedom of man.” Both are powerful antitheses, but clearly the
first one is more compact and more balanced, thus making it the preferred statement for
thousands and thousands of people to carry with them, in memory, for decades.
Another stylistic tool that Sorensen uses in Kennedy’s inaugural address is
anaphora, or sentences with like-beginnings. A series of paragraphs early on in the
speech begin, “To those old allies / To those new states / To those people / To our sister /
To that world / Finally, to those nations.” The similar beginnings serve to unify all the
ideas expressed in all six paragraphs. Actually, embedded in each paragraph is more
lexiconal repetition with the words “we… pledge.” Repetitions of the same words
become, to the human ear, a verbal hammering of those ideals into the memory. In the
middle of the speech, Sorensen begins using anaphora again with the starting words, “Let
both sides,” referring possibly to the two “sides” of government systems, namely
Democracy and Communism.
Kennedy’s speech is also riddled with metaphors, the earliest being “the torch has
been passed to a new generation of Americans…” Although there was no physical torch
being lit and taken by a swarm of American people, the symbol became a light-dark
metaphor. The torch is clearly the “light,” and the other aspects surrounding the
metaphor become the darkness – “…heirs of that first revolution,” “disciplined by a hard
and bitter peace,” “the slow undoing of those human rights…” There is also a warning in
the speech, a warning that “those who foolishly sought power by riding… the tiger ended
up inside.” By using metaphor here instead of simply stating “be civil” the paramessage
becomes clear and somber.
Sorensen, and Kennedy, employed a special metaphor known as a “martial
metaphor,” a metaphor that has to do with all things “war” or battle or militaristic. Near
the end of the inauguration speech, the good versus bad metaphor is stated as “a
beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion….” Because the nation
had already been through two world wars, the audience could easily associate with the
martial metaphor, thus effectively accomplishing Sorensen’s purpose for memorability.
Kennedy’s inauguration speech is full of effective rhetoric – metaphors, klimaxes,
antitheses, anaphoras and even a few antistrophes. Sorensen even included many
instances of alliteration: “friend and foe,” “whether it wishes us well,” “bear any burden,”
“faithful friends,” “mass misery,” “precise proposals,” etc. These stylistic endeavors are
the catalyst for remarkability and memorability in any speech, but are especially effective
in an inaugural address.
Address to the Nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis5
Kennedy’s address about the Cuban Missile Crisis was truly a tricky speech. The
president was already known to be a little “over-promising” in his diction; “if there was
no crisis when Kennedy spoke, soon there were many.”6 How would Sorensen help
make Kennedy’s speech important, pertinent, but keep it from striking fear and chaos into
the American public? Because the speech would need to contain straightforward, factual
information, Sorensen and Kennedy did not choose to use any blatant antithesis, such as
“evil and good” or “black and white,” but instead chose to stay moderate and passive
with rhetoric. This speech has many cases of alliteration and brevitas, but it also has a
small number of antitheses.
For the most part, the first half of the address is straightforward, a briefing. Not
until after Kennedy gives the seven-point list of security steps does Sorensen decide to
5
6
Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans (Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc, 2003): 168
Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans (Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc, 2003): 162
really use stylistic syntax. The main tool he employs is alliteration. Kennedy implores
Russian to “[participate] in a search for peaceful and permanent solutions” because the
USA is “prepared to present its case” with its own “proposals for a peaceful world.”
Perhaps the reason Sorensen decided to use the “P” sound for alliteration was because
many words that are associated with terseness and brevity share that sound: punctual,
precise, proper, appointment, professional, etc. Regardless, he wanted to make sure that
the world knew Kennedy meant business, and that if the Cuban populace would heed the
warning then maybe one day that country could “determine its own destiny.” The
American people had “many months of sacrifice and self-discipline” in front of them.
They could not give in and “choose the path of surrender or submission.”
In addition to alliteration, Sorensen used a fair amount of short, terse phrases –
brevitas. When addressing the “captive people of Cuba,” he makes three solid statements:
“These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and
well-being. They can only undermine it.” Although these sentences are not physically
short, their meaning is simple and to the point. Earlier in the speech, before Kennedy
explains the seven steps, he reads, “This nation is opposed to war.” Up until that
sentence, the address had been for the most part explanatory and wordy. However, by
putting such a short and powerful sentence in the middle of a long address, Sorensen has
grabbed the audience’s attention, its focus. And the very next sentence to follow is “We
are also true to our word.”
At the end of the address, after all of the difficult things were said and the crisis
contained, Sorensen wanted to appeal to the Cuban people to help America to oust Russia
from their country. Sorensen chose a word that would appeal to any oppressed person:
“free.” He chose to use anaphora to say that he understood how they longed to be free,
“free from foreign domination, free to choose… leaders, free to select their own system,
free to own… land, [and] free to speak… without fear.” In fact, to truly emphasize the
word “free,” Sorensen used asyndeton and omitted any conjunctions before it.
In Kennedy’s address about the Cuban missile crisis, Sorensen really exercised
constraint. Had he been over-zealous or too passionate in his writing, the American
public may have gone into fearful chaos. Sorensen and Kennedy worked together to
create a speech that could not only explain a grave situation but also inspire a frightened
people into courage. By using alliteration, brevitas, anaphoras and a few antitheses,
Sorensen and Kennedy very well may have avoided World War III.
Ted Sorensen’s Source of Style
Ted Sorensen attended the University of Nebraska and graduated from there in
1949. After graduating, he joined “Americans for Democratic Action.” By 1951, he had
graduated from Nebraska’s College of Law and was working with the Federal Security
Agency. It was there that he was eventually introduced to John F. Kennedy, who he
would grow close to and eventually work with closely in the White House.7
Although Sorensen may have learned some rhetorical skills while he was
attending the University of Nebraska, he seemed to really begin to hone his writing styles
when he became involved with President Kennedy. For his inaugural address, Kennedy
asked Sorensen to “study the secret of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.” Through doing
this, Sorensen realized “that Lincoln never used a two- or three-syllable word where a
one-syllable word would do, and never used two or three words where one word would
John Simkin, “Spartacus Educational”, Biography: Ted Sorensen (2004):
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsorenson.htm
7
do.”8 Undoubtedly, this type of study helped Sorensen tremendously when it came time
for him to write speeches for Kennedy. Sorensen believed that one of Kennedy’s
responsibilities was “to lead public opinion as well as respect it—to shape it, to inform it,
to woo it, and win it.”9
Ted Sorensen and John F. Kennedy spent a great deal of time working on
speeches together. Kennedy would dictate, sometimes for hours, what his feelings and
thoughts were on a particular subject and Sorensen would take those thoughts and put
them into a speech. Kennedy had no “official” speechwriter, but it was well-known that
Sorensen was his writer of speeches.10 But Sorensen did not necessarily work alone.
Kennedy would have a variety of people working on a particular subject speech at any
given time. However, if it was a major speech, then Sorensen would take the
responsibility of putting it together. He would work with other members of the board to
come up with a topic for a particular speech to be about and then he would ask them
questions in order to have solid answers for a solid speech. 11
The more Sorensen worked with Kennedy, the more he learned the style that the
President was looking for. He learned what worked with Kennedy and what the people
wanted to hear. The following is how Sorensen described the type of speech he would
try to write for Kennedy:
Our chief criterion was always audience comprehension and comfort, and
this meant: (1) short speeches, short clauses and short words, wherever possible;
(2) a series of points or propositions in numbered or logical sequence, wherever
appropriate; and (3) the construction of sentences, phrases and
paragraphs in such a manner as to simplify, clarify and emphasize.
The test of a text was not how it appeared to the eye, but how it sounded
8
Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans (Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc, 2003): 161
Martin Medhurst, Presidential Speechwriting, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003): 92
10
Martin Medhurst, Presidential Speechwriting, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003): 94
11
Martin Medhurst, Presidential Speechwriting, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003): 96
9
to the ear. His best paragraphs, when read aloud, often had a cadence not
unlike blank verse—indeed at times key words would rhyme. He was fond
of alliterative sentences, not solely for reasons of rhetoric but to reinforce
the audience’s recollection of his reasoning.12
Sorensen really began to master the “art” of speechwriting. He already had tremendous
rhetorical talent when he began to write speeches for Kennedy, but he truly began to
sharpen and fine-tune his skill as he spent day after day working on draft after draft with
the President. Sorensen began to learn Kennedy so well that he was coined the “alter
ego” of the President. Everything from the way Sorensen walked to the way he talked
began to look and sound like Kennedy.13
Even though Ted Sorensen developed outstanding rhetorical skills while he was
in college, the merger of his talents with John F. Kennedy’s in the White House was
really the evolution of Sorensen’s style. Sorensen had full authority over all of
Kennedy’s speeches – so much authority, in fact, that the only one who could change his
work was Kennedy himself. This authority gave Sorensen the freedom to spend hours
working with the President to coalesce their talents and abilities into drafts and eventually
into refined speeches. Kennedy’s speeches showed improvement when he hired
Sorensen, but Sorensen’s after-assassination writings lack the “sparkle” that was in his
collaboration speeches with Kennedy. Together, Sorensen-Kennedy created speeches that
“not only won elections, but inspired a generation of Americans.” 14
12
Martin Medhurst, Presidential Speechwriting, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003): 9798
13
Martin Medhurst, Presidential Speechwriting, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003):
103
14
Martin Medhurst, Presidential Speechwriting, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003):
104