Defending John McCain

Just because the slogan "Don't hope for a better life; vote for one" was used by the UK Tories in the late 1970s doesn't, to me, mean that the McCain campaign "plagiarized" anyone by using it. The idea of plagiarism is that you have one writer taking credit for the work of another writer which we think is wrong under a variety of circumstances. But we don't think it's wrong in the context of political campaigning.

Barack Obama didn't single-handedly write "Obama's convention speech" or "Obama's race speech" or "Obama's competitiveness speech." One gets the sense that Obama, who really did write a legitimately good book without recourse to a ghostwriter may play a larger role in his own speechmaking than is typical for a presidential candidate, but even if he doesn't he's not "plagiarizing" his speechwriters, he's giving speeches. Given that context, I think the general principle is that when it comes to political sloganeering you're free to borrow, modify, etc. as you like.

Comments

I say this calls for a shrill, Fox-style "HE'S A PLAGIARIST!!!" campaign and a thorough Malkin-style investigation of his granite counter tops.

In all eleven houses.

Remember - Fox tried to charge Obama with plagiarizing a Mario Cuomo speech where quite literally the only words in common were "if, and, the".

So, in my book, McCain is a dirty, fucking plagiarist, period.

Let Malkin sort out the nuance - she's so good at it.

Posted by calipygian | July 8, 2008 8:16 PM

ITA, but he actually did write his race speech himself. And I would imagine, single-handedly.

Posted by Rhoda | July 8, 2008 8:22 PM

"a legitimately good book"

Great. You had to fire up the Sailersignal, didn't you.

Posted by Gabriel | July 8, 2008 8:23 PM

That said, Matthew, it can't help that a candidate who primarily free-associates with the word "old" has to reach back three decades for a campaign slogan.

Posted by Jay Andrew Allen | July 8, 2008 8:28 PM

I have some doubt that the slogan used by the Tories in the 70's was sufficiently original that recycling it counts as plagiarism. Some expressions are so basic tht they can't be plagiarized--nobody thinks "McCain for President" is plagiarism even though "________ for President" has been used countless times before>

"Don't hope for a better life; vote for one" is admittedly a bit less clear than McCain for Prseident," but not all that much. It just isn't a very original or novel expression.

Posted by rea | July 8, 2008 8:52 PM

Obama's "Hope" and "Change" campaign themes are identical to Bill Clinton's in 1992.

There's really not much new under the political sun, so who cares?

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 8, 2008 8:52 PM

The McCampaign clearly agrees with you, since filling in the blank in "___ you can believe in" seems to be at the outer limit of their creative originality.

Posted by SqueakyRat | July 8, 2008 9:03 PM

Joe Biden agrees!

Posted by Al | July 8, 2008 9:06 PM

In 1987, Joe Biden withdrew from the campaign because of plagiarism. He lifted some material from a speech by Neal Kinnock, the leader of the British Labor party, without crediting Kinnock.
Biden had given the speech at other times, and credited Kinnock. But the one time he didn't was videotaped, and it became news. So maybe we do "think it's wrong in the context of political campaigning."

Secondly, plagiarism is a form of theft. But no one is stealing from speechwriters who work for a candidate. They are paid for their work. They choose to write for someone else, without using their own byline. And, they get a credential that can be a great help in their later careers. (See William Safire, George Will, and Peggy Noonan.)

Thirdly, a plagiarist lies to his or her audience. But no candidate for President claims to write the entire content of his or her speeches. And no one is under any illusion that they do. So, your comparison with speechwriters is very far off the mark.

This is newsworthy also because it shows a candidate and a staff who lack the creativity to write an original slogan. Not the most encouraging sign to voters who believe we need fresh thinking. Plus, it says McCain STILL doesn't have a theme. It's getting late in the day for that.

Posted by prtex | July 8, 2008 9:06 PM

In 1987, Joe Biden withdrew from the campaign because of plagiarism. He lifted some material from a speech by Neal Kinnock, the leader of the British Labor party, without crediting Kinnock.
Biden had given the speech at other times, and credited Kinnock. But the one time he didn't was videotaped, and it became news. So maybe we do "think it's wrong in the context of political campaigning."

Secondly, plagiarism is a form of theft. But no one is stealing from speechwriters who work for a candidate. They are paid for their work. They choose to write for someone else, without using their own byline. And, they get a credential that can be a great help in their later careers. (See William Safire, George Will, and Peggy Noonan.)

Thirdly, a plagiarist lies to his or her audience. But no candidate for President claims to write the entire content of his or her speeches. And no one is under any illusion that they do. So, your comparison with speechwriters is very far off the mark.

This is newsworthy also because it shows a candidate and a staff who lack the creativity to write an original slogan. Not the most encouraging sign to voters who believe we need fresh thinking. Plus, it says McCain STILL doesn't have a theme. It's getting late in the day for that.

Posted by prtex | July 8, 2008 9:09 PM

Let's put some real numbers behind this.
The current rate is 6.2% up to 102K.
That's $6324/year.
By my current statement (I'm 55), if I were to
become disabled tomarrow, my monthly payment
would be $2,102/month. Not a lot but something.

But more to the point, tell me where I could buy a disability policy that would pay that amount per month for $6324 a year? My additional LT and ST term policy at my work cost me more than that per month.

Why does social security work? Because it's an insurance program and it's all about risk pooling.

Posted by gearguy | July 8, 2008 10:41 PM

Barack Obama didn't single-handedly write "Obama's convention speech" or "Obama's race speech" or "Obama's competitiveness speech."

Actually... he DID write the race speech on his own, and I believe that he wrote the convention speech on his own also.

Posted by dave | July 8, 2008 11:28 PM

The one problem I can see with lifting the 1970s Tories slogans is that the Tories at the time were in opposition, and the UK was a mess. It was a fairly obvious strategy to point this out and promise to do better when they were in power.

McCain is running as the candidate of the governing party. It really should be the Democrats who should be borrowing the 1970s Tories slogans.

Posted by Ed | July 9, 2008 4:27 AM

Aside from the '70s UK reference (which only political junkies like us will ever know about anyway) is it a good slogan?

"Don't hope for a better life; vote for one"

Makes me want to vote for Obama.

I mean, how does this swing anyone?

Campaign against hope all you want, McCain.

Posted by tomtom | July 9, 2008 4:35 AM

All I can say is "Thank Heaven" that Biden forgot to credit Kinnock that day. Otherwise, we might be looking at the financial services stooge as a legit VP candidate.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 9, 2008 9:32 AM

To the extent Obama has speechwriters, he's hiring them to write for him. I've never heard anyone describe using such works as "plagiarism" in or out of the political context.

Whether McCain's lifting of someone else's slogan (presumably unapproved, but maybe not) is "plagiarism" or not, I don't really care. But your Obama speechwriting comparison is just silly.

Posted by Glenn | July 9, 2008 10:28 AM

Gotta agree with the folks upthread who've emphasized the connection between a 3-decade-old slogan and McCain's age. The problem here isn't so much plagiarism, as a, "Yesterday's Candidate Fighting for Yesterday's Ideas With Yesterday's Slogans!" kind of thing.

Posted by Pesto | July 9, 2008 10:53 AM