Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History

by Unknown

  The fall campaign began with Dukakis-Bentsen in the lead, but Bush-Quayle quickly caught up and surged ahead. By early October, the Dukakis camp was relying heavily on the assertion that its vice-presidential candidate was better qualified for the presidency than the young man who was chosen by George Bush and who was unprepared at first for the savage onslaught of the media.

  On October 6, 1988, Bentsen and Quayle met in a panel debate moderated by Judy Woodruff of PBS. Senator Quayle looked young up against the veteran Bentsen, who was determined to exploit the Republican’s relative inexperience. The youthful Republican was not above taking an adept pop at the older man: when the sound system had some difficulty, Senator Bentsen said to a panelist, “John, we can’t hear you,” and Senator Quayle volunteered, “I can hear you okay.” The panel of reporters helped Mr. Bentsen by concentrating on the subject of personal preparedness, and—when Senator Quayle mentioned he had as much experience in the Congress as former President John F. Kennedy did when he sought the presidency, Senator Bentsen delivered with the most effective single punch in the history of televised presidential debates. The four simple declarative sentences, each with “Jack Kennedy” in them, built to a stunning rhetorical climax that charged effrontery in evoking the name of a Democratic icon. Quayle could say only that the shot was “uncalled for”; he could not then point out that he had been comparing experience before running for president and that his opponent had escalated his remark to a comparison with the martyred president in his totality.

  This moment was Mr. Bentsen’s high point and Mr. Quayle’s low point in life; the issue of vice-presidential experience was seen to be minor, and Bush-Quayle went on to defeat Dukakis-Bentsen in a landslide.

  ***

  [QUAYLE:] The question goes to whether I am qualified to be vice-president, and in the case of a tragedy whether I’m qualified to be president. Qualifications for the office of vice-president or president are not age alone. You must look at accomplishments, and you must look at experience. I have more experience than others that have sought the office of vice-president. Let’s look at qualifications, and let’s look at the three biggest issues that are going to be confronting America in the next presidency.

  Those three issues are national security and arms control, jobs and education, and the federal budget deficit. On each one of those issues I have more experience than does the governor of Massachusetts. In national security and arms control, you have to understand the relationship between a ballistic missile, a warhead, what throw weight, what megatonnage is. You better understand about telemetry and acryption, and you better understand that you have to negotiate from a position of strength. These are important issues because we want to have more arms control and arms reductions.

  In the areas of jobs and education, I wrote the Job Training Partnership Act—a bipartisan bill, a bill that has trained and employed over three million economically disadvantaged youths and adults in this country.

  On the area of the federal budget deficit, I have worked eight years on the Senate Budget Committee, and I wish that the Congress would give us the line item veto to help deal with that.

  And if qualifications alone are going to be the issue in this campaign, George Bush has more qualifications than Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen combined….

  [BENTSEN: ] This debate tonight is not about the qualifications for the vice-presidency. The debate is whether or not Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen are qualified to be president of the United States. Because, Judy, just as you have said, that has happened too often in the past. And if that tragedy should occur, we have to step in there without any margin for error, without time for preparation, to take over the responsibility for the biggest job in the world, that of running this great country of ours—to take over the awesome responsibility for commanding the nuclear weaponry that this country has.

  Now, the debate tonight is a debate about the presidency itself and a presidential decision that has to be made by you. The stakes could not be higher….

  [Q: ] Senator Quayle, I want to take you back, if I can, to the question Judy asked you about some of the apprehensions people may feel about your being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

  And let us assume, if we can, for the sake of this question that you become vice-president and the president is incapacitated for one reason or another and you have to take the reins of power. When that moment came, what would be the first steps that you’d take, and why?

  [QUAYLE:] First I’d—first I’d say a prayer for myself and for the country that I’m about to lead. And then I would assemble his people and talk. And I think this question keeps going back to the qualifications and what kind of a vice-president and, in this hypothetical situation, if I had to assume the responsibilities of president what I would be.

  And as I have said, age alone—although I can tell you after the experience of these last few weeks in the campaign, I’ve added ten years to my age—age alone is not the only qualification. You’ve got to look at experience, and you’ve got to look at accomplishments. And can you make a difference?

  Have I made a difference in the United States Senate, where I’ve served for eight years? Yes, I have. Have I made a difference in the Congress that I’ve served for twelve years? Yes, I have.

  As I said before, looking at the issue of qualifications—and I am delighted that it comes up, because on the three most important challenges facing America—arms control and national security; jobs and education, and budget deficit—I have more experience and accomplishments than does the governor of Massachusetts.

  I have been in the Congress, and I’ve worked on these issues. And believe me, when you look at arms control and trying to deal with the Soviet Union, you cannot come at it from a naive position. You have to understand the Soviet Union; you have to understand how they will respond. Sitting on that Senate Armed Services Committee for eight years has given me the experience to deal with the Soviet Union and how we can move forward.

  That is just one of the troubling issues that’s going to be facing this nation. And I’m prepared….

  [Q: ] Senator, I want to take you back to the question that I asked you earlier about what would happen if you were to take over in an emergency, and what you would do first and why. You said you’d say a prayer, and you said something about a meeting. What would you do next?

  [QUAYLE:] I don’t believe that it’s proper for me to get into the specifics of a hypothetical situation like that. The situation is that if I was called upon to serve as the president of this country or the responsibilities of the president of this country, would I be capable and qualified to do that. And I have tried to list the qualifications of twelve years in the United States Congress. I have served in the Congress for twelve years. I have served in the Congress, and served eight years on the Senate Arms Services Committee. I have traveled a number of times. I’ve been to Geneva many times to meet with our negotiators as we’re hammering out the INF treaty. I’ve met with the Western political leaders: Margaret Thatcher, Chancellor Kohl. I know them. They know me. I know what it takes to lead this country forward. And if that situation arises, yes, I will be prepared and I’ll be prepared to lead this country if that happens.

  [BENTSEN:] Once again, I think what we’re looking at here is someone that can step in at the presidency level at the moment if that tragedy would occur.

  And if that’s the case, again, you have to look at maturity of judgment. And you have to look at breadth of experience. You have to see what kind of leadership roles that person has played in his life before that crisis struck him.

  And if you do that type of thing, then you’ll arrive at a judgment that I think would be a wise one. And I hope that would mean that you’d say, We’re going to vote for Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen….

  [QUAYLE:] Three times that I have had this question, and I’ll try to answer it again for you as clearly as I can, because the question you’re asking is what kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have
to be president. What kind of qualifications do I have, and what would I do in this kind of a situation? And what would I do in this situation?

  I would make sure that the people in the cabinet and the people and advisers to the president are called in, and I’ll talk to them and I’ll work with them. And I will know them on a firsthand basis, because as vice-president I’ll sit on the National Security Council. And I’ll know them on a firsthand basis because I’m going to be coordinating the drug effort. I’ll know them on a firsthand basis because Vice-President George Bush is going to re-create the space council, and I’ll be in charge of that, I will have day-to-day activities with all the people in government.

  And then, if that unfortunate situation happens, if that situation, which would be very tragic, happens, I will be prepared to carry out the responsibilities of the presidency of the United States of America. And I will be prepared to do that, I will be prepared not only because of my service in the Congress but because of my ability to communicate and to lead. It is not just age—it’s accomplishments, it’s experience. I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice-president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration if that unfortunate event would ever occur.

  [QUAYLE:] Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

  What has to be done in a situation like that is to call in the joint—

  [QUAYLE:] That was really uncalled for, Senator.

  [BENTSEN:] You’re the one that was making the comparison, Senator. And I’m one who knew him well. And frankly I think you’re so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well taken….

  [QUAYLE:] Tonight has been a very important evening. You have been able to see Dan Quayle as I really am, and how George Bush and I want to lead this country into the future. Thank you, America, for listening, and thank you for your fairness. Now, you will have a choice to make on election day; you will have a choice of whether America is going to choose the road of Michael Dukakis or the road of George Bush, as we march toward the twenty-first century.

  The road of Michael Dukakis comes down to this: bigger government, higher taxes. They’ve always believed in higher taxes; they always have and they always will. Cuts in national defense. Back to the old economics of high interest rates, high inflation and the old politics of high unemployment.

  Now, the road of George Bush is the road to the future, and it comes down to this: an America second to none, with visions of greatness, economic expansion, tough laws, tough judges, strong values, respect for the flag and our institutions. George Bush will lead us to the twenty-first century, a century that will be of hope and peace. Ronald Reagan and George Bush saved America from decline; we changed America. Michael Dukakis fought us every step of the way.

  It’s not that they’re not sympathetic; it’s simply that they will take America backwards. George Bush has the experience, and with me the future. A future committed to our family, a future committed to the freedom.

  Thank you. Good night, and God bless you.

  [BENTSEN:] In just thirty-four days America will elect new leadership for our country. It’s a most important decision, because there is no bigger job than governing this great country of ours and leading it into its future.

  Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen offer you experience, tempered, capable leadership to meet those challenges of the future. Our opposition says lower your sights, rest on your laurels.

  Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen think America can do better; that America can’t just coast into the future, clinging to the past. This race is too close. The competition is too tough, and the stakes are too high.

  Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen think America must move into that future united in a commitment to make this country of ours the most powerful, the most prosperous nation in the world.

  As Americans we honor our past, and we should. But our children are going to live in the future. And Mike Dukakis says the best of America is yet to come. But that won’t happen taking care of our economy, just putting it on automatic pilot. It won’t happen by accident. It’s going to take leadership, and it’s going to take courage and the commitment and a contribution by all of us to do that.

  I have worked for the betterment of our country both in war and peace, as a bomber pilot, as one who has been a businessman and a United States senator, working to make this nation the fairest and the strongest and the most powerful in the world.

  Help us bring America to a new era of greatness. The debate has been ours, but the decision is yours. God bless you.

  V

  TRIALS

  Martin Luther Addresses the Diet of Worms

  “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.”

  Excommunicated by Pope Leo X but still vocal and determined, Martin Luther was not to be deterred from facing his critics at the Diet of Worms, an imperial deliberative body. He maintained that defiance afterward: “If I had heard that as many devils would set on me in Worms as there are tiles on the roofs, I should nonetheless have ridden there.”

  Luther’s 1517 posting of ninety-five theses that questioned church doctrine had angered the Catholic authorities. Unswayed by a condemnation from Rome and driven to burn a papal bull in 1520, the German founder of Protestantism was tried the following year by a secular tribunal at the diet and then condemned for heresy by Emperor Charles V.

  At his trial. Luther uses both simile (“as clear as noonday”) and Scripture, quoting from both the Old and the New Testament in refusing to retract his writings that were deemed heretical. By addressing himself specifically to the charges brought against him, Luther reiterates his own positions against popery and provides the emperor with “a simple, clear, and direct answer”—that he cannot “speak against his conscience.”

  Added to the first printed copies of the speech was the German statement “Hier steh’ ich, ich kann nicht anders,” a quotation that can be found today on the Worms monument to Luther. This remark, which has been translated as “I stand here and can say no more,” is more forcefully rendered at the end of the translation given below.

  ***

  MOST SERENE EMPEROR, and you illustrious princes and gracious lords: I this day appear before you in all humility, according to your command, and I implore Your Majesty and your august highnesses, by the mercies of God, to listen with favor to the defense of a cause which I am well assured is just and right. I ask pardon, if by reason of my ignorance, I am wanting in the manners that befit a court; for I have not been brought up in kings’ palaces, but in the seclusion of a cloister.

  Two questions were yesterday put to me by His Imperial Majesty; the first, whether I was the author of the books whose titles were read; the second, whether I wished to revoke or defend the doctrine I have taught. I answered the first, and I adhere to that answer.

  As to the second, I have composed writings on very different subjects. In some I have discussed faith and good works, in a spirit at once so pure, clear, and Christian that even my adversaries themselves, far from finding anything to censure, confess that these writings are profitable, and deserve to be perused by devout persons. The pope’s bull, violent as it is, acknowledges this. What, then, should I be doing if I were now to retract these writings? Wretched man! I alone, of all men living, should be abandoning truths approved by the unanimous voice of friends and enemies, and opposing doctrines that the whole world glories in confessing!

  I have composed, secondly, certain works against popery, wherein I have attacked such as by false doctrines, irregular lives, and scandalous examples afflict the Christian world, and ruin the bodies and souls of men. And is not this confirmed by the grief of all who fear God? Is it not manifest that the laws and human doctrines of the popes entangle, vex, and distress the consciences of the f
aithful. while the crying and endless extortions of Rome engulf the property and wealth of Christendom, and more particularly of this illustrious nation?

  If I were to revoke what I have written on that subject, what should I do… but strengthen this tyranny, and open a wider door to so many and flagrant impieties? Bearing down all resistance with fresh fury, we should behold these proud men swell, foam, and rage more than ever! And not merely would the yoke which now weighs down Christians be made more grinding by my retraction—it would thereby become, so to speak, lawful—for, by my retraction, it would receive confirmation from Your Most Serene Majesty, and all the states of the empire. Great God! I should thus be like to an infamous cloak, used to hide and cover over every kind of malice and tyranny.

  In the third and last place, I have written some books against private individuals, who had undertaken to defend the tyranny of Rome by destroying faith. I freely confess that I may have attacked such persons with more violence than was consistent with my profession as an ecclesiastic: I do not think of myself as a saint; but neither can I retract these books, because I should, by so doing, sanction the impieties of my opponents, and they would thence take occasion to crush God’s people with still more cruelty.

  Yet, as I am a mere man, and not God, I will defend myself after the example of Jesus Christ, who said, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness against me” (John 18:23). How much more should I, who am but dust and ashes, and so prone to error, desire that every one should bring forward what he can against my doctrine.

  Therefore, Most Serene Emperor, and you illustrious princes, and all, whether high or low, who hear me, I implore you by the mercies of God to prove to me by the writings of the prophets and apostles that I am in error. As soon as I shall be convinced, I will instantly retract all my errors, and will myself be the first to seize my writings and commit them to the flames.