Senator Barack Obama, 2008
Don’t tell me words don’t matter. “I have a dream.” Just words? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Just words? “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”—just words? Just speeches?
Governor Deval Patrick, 2006:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Just words—just words! “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Just words! “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Just words! “I have a dream.” Just words!
Some are saying we shouldn’t call this plagiarism because all these politicians have speechwriters anyway, and the two politicians shared campaign staff right to the very top, and Deval Patrick even told Barack Obama he could and should use these words to rebut a political point.
But whether this episode qualifies as plagiarism or not, it bothers me on a substantive level.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” and “ask not…” and “I have a dream…” are phrases that were not “just words” because they were written by the speakers at the time to respond to an original moment with a new idea…
… well, actually not. The Declaration of Independence was lifted in large part from the writings of John Locke and others. Kennedy’s “ask not” phrase was a reworking from Oliver Wendell Holmes and Warren G. Harding. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech is original, but his doctoral dissertation was plagiarized.
How ironic that Barack Obama would borrow a phrase which itself referenced the work of previous generations of borrowers.
You know, I don’t think it’s fair to hold people to the same standards of plagiarism that academics have when they’re just giving a speech in public. It’s more along the lines of telling a joke that someone else told before.
I really don’t see what the big deal is about the substance of the borrowing, or the original material. These statements are like icons, linguistic symbols used to refer to something else in a shorthand. That common shorthand makes what Obama did more like a repetition of a culturally common theme than borrowing or plagiarism.
If the idea is good and not implemented, of course we should keep repeating t until it either works or ceases to have any meaning at all.
Every time Biden’s name is put forward as a presidential candidate, his old plagiarism episode comes up. He will never be the nominee because of it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm#TOP
But perhaps these days expectations are lower.
It also occurs to me that the research for the classic Roots was faked. When researchers tried to find the all that really great stuff the story was based on, they couldn’t find it–it was all invented.
Biden lifted a whole entire speech, without permission. And that wasn’t the reason he wasn’t a candidate this time around.
An entire speech? That’s not what the link says. But that is when he dropped out of the race. Since that time he has never been back in seriously. It was his Chappaquiddick.
Politics is repetition of rhetoric, plain and simple…Barack better be the next president. There are myriad of things to worry about than this anyway.
Barack “better” be the next president–or what, Joe?
It’s all about honesty and expression. People should believe the stuff you say.
Who really thinks top political candidates don’t have quite a few speech writers on the payroll or even volunteering? You really think those are all “their words”, ever?
Do they believe what they say, however, that’s what really matters. Are they sincere, and not naive?
What’s wrong with his speech? Is it a good one; does it inspire anyone? That’s what it’s purpose is, really nothing more. You have other avenues of their expression, like the so-called “debates” to try and see, however weakly implemented, how well they can “think on their feet”.
I see a lot of crap written, here and elsewhere that can’t meet even those criteria very well.