Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History

by Unknown

  I do believe that’s all I want to say about the technique of composing talk. All I want to say here and now, I mean. It’s all I can say, anyhow. But about delivering over the air what’s composed? Ah, there I think I’d better keep quiet. Each has a way that best suits himself (or herself, of course). Each must find that way: his or her own way. To find it one has to experiment, as I’ve said. You may even, I think, copy or mimic someone else’s style now and again just to see if there’s anything in it that fits you. But in the end, you’ve got to find your own self. Or rather, you’ve got to find or create a radio version of your real self (all that about being natural’s no good, you know. Fine art’s never natural, it only looks it. Or sounds it.) You’ve got to find or create a radio version of yourself, the radio quintessence of yourself, and then write for it, and go to the microphone and act it—with truth and sincerity.

  Just two odd things from my own experience on the matter of delivery. My belief is that listeners hear speech, not in a sequence of words—one after the other—but in chunks; and what I try to do, though I may seldom succeed in my good intentions, is to throw out my words in bunches… like that… and then pause long enough for the listener to take that bunch in. I don’t know if that’s right for everyone; I don’t even know if others would think it right for me; but it’s been my theory, and it’s what I’ve aimed at in practice, however often I may have missed the mark.

  The other oddment is this. The matter of speed. All over, average speed. Many of you have written to me from time to time: “What you were saying was so exciting. But oh I wish you’d gone slower. I missed some words.” Yes, but if I’d gone slower you wouldn’t have been excited. You’d have written then and said, “Why were you so solemn? You nearly sent me to sleep!” Oh, I know…. You can’t have it both ways. When I have gone slow it’s not been for that. It’s been because of my many friends in Wales who have trouble in following too rapid English, however clearly it may be spoken.

  Well, there you are. That’s my last talk—a talk about giving a talk. It’s a sort of—well, I won’t say “last will and testament,” but at any rate a testament. So now, I leave you for a year or two. I’m going to take things easy for a while—or try to. Then I must buckle to on all sorts of other explorations and enterprises. I know I shall have your good wishes. You have mine. Look after yourselves. Blessings on you.

  Architect Frank Lloyd Wright Calls Up the Image of “the Floo Floo Bird”

  “I know of nothing more silly than to expect ‘government’ to solve our advanced problems for us. If we have no ideas, how can government have any?”

  “Early in life,” said the greatest of American architects, “I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change.” Frank Lloyd Wright died in 1959, at the age of ninety-one. During the seven decades of his innovative career, Wright developed a “prairie style” in the design of buildings with long, low horizontal lines and open interiors.

  In his autobiography, he wrote, “No house should ever be on any hill or on anything. It should be of the hill belonging to it, so hill and house could live together each the happier for the other.” This central concern of Wright’s work was expressed in the title of his 1939 book, An Organic Architecture.

  In 1938, he addressed a meeting of the Association of Federal Architects. Speaking in the nation’s capital, he discussed organic architecture as a field outside of governmental regulation, and added to his reputation for being irascibly opinionated.

  In the speech, he derogates America’s cultural heritage and doubts the effectiveness of government in advancing American architecture. In addition to the repetition of “now” to introduce his ideas, Wright uses rhetorical questions and the unforgettable illustration of “the floo floo bird” to construct his argument.

  ***

  …THE CULTURAL INFLUENCES in our country are like the floo floo bird. I am referring to the peculiar and especial bird who always flew backward. To keep the wind out of its eyes? No. Just because it didn’t give a darn where it was going, but just had to see where it had been. Now, in the floo floo bird you have the true symbol of our government architecture—too, and in consequence, how discredited American culture stands in the present time. All the world knows it to be funny except America. What prevented us and still prevents us from knowing it? Armchair education, let’s say.

  Now, all this has parallels in history. The Romans were just as incognizant as we of the things of the spirit. They, too, had no culture of their own. England had none of her own, and we, having none, got what we have as a substitute second, third, or fourth hand from them all. Roman culture, for instance, was Greek. The Romans, however, did have great engineers (you have all heard of the arch), but what did the Romans do with their greatest invention—the arch? You know well enough that for centuries they wasted it by pasting a travesty of Greek trabeation over it to conceal the truth of structure, until finally, some vulgar Roman, more “uncultured” than the rest, one day got up and said, “Hell! Take it all away! What’s the matter with the arch? It’s a genuine, beautiful, and noble thing”; and finally they got it, got the common arch as indigenous architecture.

  We, the modern Romans, probably are going to get architecture something like that same way. We are going to have a true architecture of glass, steel, and the forms that gratify our new sense of space. We are going to have it. No Colonial Eden is able, long, to say us nay.

  Culture, given time, will catch up and assert itself in spite of reaction. This thing, which we call America, as I have said, goes around the world today. It is chiefly spirit but that spirit is reality. Not by way of government can we find encouragement of any help. No, we can have nothing by way of official government until the thing is at least ten years in the past.

  What can government do with an advanced idea? If it is still a controversial idea, and any good idea must be so, can government touch it without its eye on at least the next election? It cannot. I know of nothing more silly than to expect “government” to solve our advanced problems for us. If we have no ideas, how can government have any?

  Secretary of State Dean Acheson Explains Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union

  “We want peace, but not at any price.”

  American Diplomat Dean Acheson served as secretary of state under President Harry Truman, from 1949 to 1953—“present at the creation,” as he put it in titling his memoirs, of the policy of the containment of communism. Acheson supported the forming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and favored military strength as well as foreign aid to curb the expansion of Soviet power.

  While secretary of state, Acheson was invited to speak at the University of California at Berkeley in March 1950. This address, in abbreviated form below, was part of the Conference on International Cooperation for World Economic Development.

  In this talk Acheson enumerates seven primary points of disagreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. These points of contention in Soviet-American tension range from the use of military force to the control of atomic energy. Acheson’s approach to these issues is underscored by the anaphora of “We must not”—an expression that introduces several clauses. Through the positive reinforcement of the principles of freedom and justice, Acheson foresees the achievement of American purpose, borrowing from Lincoln’s second inaugural the words that end this address.

  ***

  I WISH TO make a report to you about the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union…. It is now nearly five years since the end of hostilities, and the victorious Allies have been unable to define the terms of peace with the defeated countries. This is a grave, a deeply disturbing fact. For our part, we do not intend nor wish, in fact we do not know how, to create satellites. Nor can we accept a settlement which would make Germany, Japan, or liberated Austria satellites of the Soviet Union. The experience in Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria has been one of bitter d
isappointment and shocking betrayal of the solemn pledges by the wartime Allies. The Soviet leaders joined in the pledge at Tehran that they looked forward “with confidence to the day when all peoples of the world may live free lives, untouched by tyranny, and according to their varying desires and their own consciences.” We can accept treaties of peace, which would give reality to this pledge and to the interests of all in security.

  With regard to Germany, unification under a government chosen in free elections under international observation is a basic element in an acceptable settlement. With that need recognized and with a will to define the terms of peace, a German treaty could be formulated which, while not pretending to solve all of the complex and bitter problems of the German situation, would, nevertheless, go far toward a relaxation of a set of major tensions.

  With regard to Austria, that unhappy country is still under occupation because the Soviet leaders do not want a treaty. The political and economic independence of Austria is being sabotaged by the determination of the Soviets, camouflaged in technicalities, to maintain their forces and special interests in eastern Austria.

  With regard to Japan, we feel that the Soviet leaders could recognize the interest which nations other than the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers have in a Japanese peace treaty and could refrain from taking positions and insisting on procedures which block progress toward a treaty.

  In the Far East generally, there are many points where the Soviet leaders could, if they chose, relax tensions. They could, for example, permit the United Nations Commission in Korea to carry out its duties by allowing the commission’s entry into North Korea and by accepting its report as the basis for a peaceful settlement of that liberated country’s problems. They could repatriate Japanese prisoners of war from Siberian camps. They could refrain from subverting the efforts of the newly independent states of Asia and their native leaders to solve their problems in their own way.

  With regard to the whole group of countries which we are accustomed to think of as the satellite area, the Soviet leaders could withdraw their military and police force and refrain from using the shadow of that force to keep in power persons or regimes which do not command the confidence of the respective peoples, freely expressed through orderly representative processes. In other words, they could elect to observe, in practice, the declaration to which they set their signatures at Yalta concerning liberated Europe….

  This is a question of elementary good faith, and it is vital to a spirit of confidence that other treaties and other agreements will be honored. Nothing would so alter the international climate as the holding of elections in the satellite states in which the true will of the people could be expressed.

  The Soviet leaders could drop their policy of obstruction in the United Nations and could instead act as if they believe the United Nations is, as Stalin himself has recently called it, a serious instrumentality for the maintenance of international peace and security. They are simply not acting that way now.

  Their policy of walkout and boycott is a policy that undermines the concept of majority decision. Indeed, they seem deliberately to entrench themselves in a minority position in the United Nations….

  The Soviet leaders could join us in seeking realistic and effective arrangements for the control of atomic weapons and the limitation of armaments in general. We know that it is not easy for them under their system to contemplate the functioning on their territory of an authority in which people would participate who are not of their political persuasion.

  If we have not hesitated to urge that they as well as we accept this requirement, it is because we believe that a spirit of genuine responsibility to mankind is widely present in this world. Many able administrators and scientists could be found to operate such an authority who would be only too happy, regardless of political complexion, to take an elevated and enlightened view of the immense responsibility, which would rest upon them. There are men who would scorn to use their powers for the negative purpose of intrigue and destruction. We believe that an authority could be established which would not be controlled or subject to control by either ourselves or the Soviet Union.

  The Kremlin could refrain from using the Communist apparatus controlled by it throughout the world to attempt to overthrow, by subversive means, established governments with which the Soviet government stands in an outward state of friendship and respect. In general, it could desist from, and could cooperate in efforts to prevent, indirect aggression across national frontiers—a mode of conduct which is inconsistent with the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charter.

  The Soviet leaders could cooperate with us to the end that the official representatives of all countries are treated everywhere with decency and respect and that an atmosphere is created in which these representatives could function in a normal and helpful manner, conforming to the accepted codes of diplomacy….

  When we now find our representatives treated as criminals, when we see great official propaganda machines reiterating that they are sinister people and that contact with them is pregnant with danger—we cannot believe that such insinuations are advanced in good faith, and we cannot be blind to the obvious implications of such an attitude.

  In general, the Soviet leaders could refrain, I think, from systematically distorting to their own peoples the picture of the world outside their borders, and of our country in particular.

  We are not suggesting that they become propagandists for any country or system other than their own. But the Soviet leaders know, and the world knows, with what genuine disappointment and concern the people of this country were brought to the realization that the wartime collaboration between the major Allies was not to be the beginning of a happier and freer era in the association between the peoples of the Soviet Union and other peoples.

  What are we now to conclude from the morbid fancies which their propaganda exudes of a capitalist encirclement, of a United States craftily and systematically plotting another world war? They know, and the world knows, how foreign is the concept of aggressive war to our philosophy and our political system. They know that we are not asking to be the objects of any insincere and effusive demonstrations of sentimental friendship. But we feel that the Soviet leaders could at least permit access to the Soviet Union of persons and ideas from other countries so that other views might be presented to the Russian people.

  These are some of the things which we feel that the Soviet leaders could do, which would permit the rational and peaceful development of the coexistence of their system and ours. They are not things that go to the depths of the moral conflict. They are not things that promise the kingdom of heaven. They have been formulated by us, not as moralists but as servants of government, anxious to get on with the practical problems that lie before us, and to get on with them in a manner consistent with mankind’s deep longing for a respite from fear and uncertainty.

  Nor have they been formulated as a one-sided bargain. A will to achieve binding, peaceful settlements would be required of all participants. All would have to produce unmistakable evidence of their good faith. All would have to accept agreements in the observance of which all nations could have real confidence.

  The United States is ready, as it has been and always will be, to cooperate in genuine efforts to find peaceful settlements. Our attitude is not inflexible, our opinions are not frozen, our positions are not and will not be obstacles to peace. But it takes more than one to cooperate….

  So our course of action in the world of hard reality which faces us is not one that is easily charted. It is not one, which this nation can adopt without consideration of the needs and views of other free nations. It is one which requires all the devotion and resolve and wisdom that can be summoned up….

  We want peace, but not at any price. We are ready to negotiate, but not at the expense of rousing false hopes which would be dashed by new failures. We are equally determined to support all real efforts for peaceful settlements and to resist aggression.<
br />
  The times call for a total diplomacy equal to the task of defense against Soviet expansion and to the task of building the kind of world in which our way of life can flourish. We must continue to press ahead with the building of a free world which is strong in its faith and in its material progress. The alternative is to allow the free nations to succumb one by one to the erosive and encroaching processes of Soviet expansion….

  We must recognize that our ability to achieve our purposes cannot rest alone on a desire for peace, but that it must be supported by the strength to meet whatever tasks Providence may have in store for us.

  We must not make the mistake, in other words, of using Soviet conduct as a standard for our own. Our efforts cannot be merely reactions to the latest moves by the Kremlin. The bipartisan line of American foreign policy has been and must continue to be the constructive task of building, in cooperation with others, the kind of world in which freedom and justice can flourish. We must not be turned aside from this task by the diversionary thrusts of the Soviet Union. And if it is necessary, as it sometimes is, to deal with such a thrust or the threat of one, the effort should be understood as one which, though essential, is outside the main stream of our policy.

  Progress is to be gained in the doing of the constructive tasks which give practical affirmation to the principles by which we live.

  The success of our efforts rests finally on our faith in ourselves and in the values for which this Republic stands. We will need courage and steadfastness and the cool heads and steady nerves of a citizenry which has always faced the future “with malice toward none; with charity toward all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.”

  Senator Henry Jackson Analyzes International Terrorism