The plagiarism accusations against Obama strike me as mighty weak. Here are the facts, as reported in the Washington Post's blog, The Trail:
Speaking in Milwaukee on Saturday night, Obama drew a standing ovation for a speech that included a defense of speechmaking — and his appeal to a sense of hope — as worthy leadership tools. He said, "The most important thing we can do right now is to reengage the American people in the process of governance and get them excited again....
"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?"
During the 2006 campaign for governor, Patrick drew fire from his Republican opponent, who said his stylish speechmaking disguised a lack of substance. Among his responses was this one:
"'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?"
Here's why I don't excited by plagiarism allegations. As I've argued before, when a typical writer uses another's words, he commits two sins. (1) He deceives readers into wrongly giving him credit for originality. (2) He wrongly denies the original author credit that's important to the original author's reputation. That's why, for instance, scholars, whose stock in trade is original reasoning and writing, must be careful to properly attribute material they borrow from others, especially other scholars.
But I don't think this sensibly applies to politicians copying from other politicians. Politicians are admired for having sensible ideas and moving rhetoric. They're not expected to have ideas or words that are genuinely original in the sense of being their own invention; many high-level politicians' words are written by speechwriters, and even the ones that they write themselves are admired for their soundness or rhetorical effectiveness, not for their creativity. (Politicians are looked down on for having tired, boring, overused rhetoric or ideas that are the same as everyone else's; but not being cliché is not the same as being entirely original.)
Moreover, precisely because high-level politicians' words are usually written by speechwriters, there's little risk that close paraphrasing without attribution will wrongly deny anyone credit. Deval Patrick's speechwriter wouldn't get public credit for the words in any event; and Deval Patrick doesn't deserve public credit (except to the extent, which strikes me as too slight to make a difference, of deserving credit for sound editing, given that many politicians do edit their speechwriters' work).
It's possible that Patrick did write this speech or at least this passage, or that he's an extremely heavy editor of his speechwriters' work. But there's no reason to presume this harm to the original author as a general matter in copying politicians' speeches; and Patrick's defense of Obama is sufficient to make clear that in this particular case the author is either anonymous (if he's a speechwriter) or gives his consent (if he's Patrick).
Now it's probably marginally better to err on the side of giving too much credit rather than too little, just in case the original author would be annoyed (and is entitled to be annoyed), just in case some listeners expect your speeches to be original to you, and perhaps to indirectly reinforce a broader antiplagiarism norm that is sound in most other contexts even if it's inapplicable here. But when people fail to do this, especially in extemporaneous comments, they shouldn't be much faulted for it, and certainly not faulted using the label "plagiarism."
And, yes, I take much the same view as to Sen. Biden's using the words of British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock in Biden's 1988 Presidential campaign.
UPDATE: James Taranto (Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web) has more.
Short words are best and the old words when short are best of all.
Now who did I rip that off from...?
It's funny this controversy stems from a statement about words, full of quotes which are themselves not attributed and which nobody would dream of saying were plagiarized.
I think a lot of liberals are tired of what they see as unfair attacks on their politicians by conservatives. And a lot of those same liberals are tired of the Clintons, who do the same exact thing. This type of attack is entirely indicative of the Clintons. They care about one thing and one thing only: their own political survival. No doubt that Hillary will try to win the nomination even if she has to burn down the democratic house in the process. If we lived in a decent world, democrats who granted Bush the power to wage a senseless war would be defeated in their next primary contest. Sadly, we don’t live in that world. But I’d like to think that we at least live in a world where people who made that sort of lapse of judgment were permanently disqualified from being promoted.
What about the allegation that Obama is overambitious because he wrote an essay about being President in kindergarten?
Put another way, he brings us the "audacity of hope" through his speeches, which we are assured are more important than his (lack of) accomplishments.
Well, it's not really HIS hope is it? And it's sort of a false hope if it isn't his, don't you think? Doesn't it make you sort of doubt that he'll be able to bring out this hope since he's unable to articulate it without using other people's words?
I think Eugene is way too caught up with an academic definition of plagiarism, and he forgets that there is a wider world out there. Eugene is trying to pigeon hole the academic arguments with plagarism into the public policy problems of a candidate plagarising speeches.
Maybe there is a better word for taking another person's speeches and words as your own without informing the audience that doesn't also invoke the irrelevant academic issues. If so, we can use that. But until we come up with that word, plagiarism seems to fit quite well. And because of the questions I raised, it's an important issue regarding this candidate.
This primary election is over. There is no way Hillary can win the nomination now in a way that doesn’t destroy the party. Looking at the vote margin and the exit polls, she has lost ground in every group that has supported her, and the dream of a “clean win” that doesn’t involve water-cannons in Denver is gone. Look for pressure from DNC big-wigs this week for her to concede and help unify the party. McCain has started running the GE, and it’s time to let Obama do the same without having to protect his left-flank from the now doomed Hillary campaign.
Of course, Andrea Mitchell had a quote from a Hillary operative that Obama’s negatives have “nowhere to go but up”, so I’m afraid she’ll continue to carry McCain’s water for another month. Perhaps she wants to run against an incumbent McCain in 2012?
I wonder how much Obama identifies with Deval Partrick? Has everyone forgotten Patrick’s part in the denial of First Amendment rights to the Berkeley Three? As assistant Attorney General he contended that Congress intended the Fair Housing Act to proscribe any speech if it leads to discrimination prohibited by the FHA. Two years after HUD concluded that the Berkeley Three were acting within their First Amendment rights, Patrick continued to defend DOJ's attempt to criminalize free speech in a case in Fort Worth Texas. Patrick analogized political leaflets to baseball bats. He sees no difference in handing out a leaflet advocating a political position and attacking someone with a baseball bat. All this is covered on page 50 of VC’s own David Bernstein's book You Can't Say That.
Like Obama Patrick attended Harvard Law School where he apparently he didn’t learn much about the First Amendment because he thinks the FHA can trump the US Constitution. If this a taste of what we will get with an Obama administration? What kind of people will he appoint to DOJ?
The notion that speeches are the basis of "his entire success" is ludicrous coming from Clinton. 1) He has more legislative experience overall than she does, 2) Her husband was elected based primarily on his gifts as a speech writer (certainly not on his national political experiences). No Bill, no Hillary. Of course someone else's oral skills played a big part in Hillary running for the senate, but that's another story.
No. Seeing as how he is leading in the primaries, your fears that he will be able to bring out this hope are unfounded.
Many people quote Shakespeare or some other poet when wooing a mate. Does that mean their love is false?
I'd rather a pol us someone else's words sincerely, than use his words insincerely. "Compassionate conservative" comes to mind. So does "I"m a uniter, not a diveder"
David Axelrod appears to be setting up the "Hope &Change" franchise, with canned speeches that are so content-free that they can be used by any politician running for any office. He even offers a canned speech defending against the charge of using canned speeches.
It is interesting that, based on the video clips, Deval Patrick seems to be better at reading the speeches than Obama. On the other hand, Gov. Patrick does not seem to be performing well in his new job.
As Sam Goldwyn said, "Once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made."
What does this even mean? How does the fact that he used someone else’s argument in that other person's words to combat a point somehow mean his hope isn’t really his? I mean, what does that even mean? Please, explain this to me by drawing it out.
Hillary uses her husband's phrases all the time. She has even used some of Obama's. I don't think that makes her any worse of a person. Now granted, she lacks even a shred of decency and lacks even a little bit of moral courage, so it's hard for any one thing to make her a worse person. But even if she were a decent human being, I would not think she were a worse person because she had at times used someone else's argument in someone else's words.
. . .
Zarkov, something tells me you won't learn much about what kind of person Obama will appoint to lead the DOJ by looking at one of his friend’s views on the First Amendment.
Plus, since Gov. Patrick at least has a bit of executive experience by now, heck why not just run him -- another presumably qualified black man who also "has a dream" and whose truths are indeed "self-evident".
I strongly suspect the Clinton campaign pushed the plagarism issue, linking to the YouTube clip, to show voters that hey -- there are other qualified black men out there too, that "Saint" Obama might not be all that and a bag of chips. His main selling point, whether we're allowed to say it or not (and I don't see why not, since that speech, plus his wife's recent "I'm finally proud of our country" rhetoric clearly alludes to it) is his skin color running for the highest office in the land.
When you see the Patrick YouTube, maybe it will wise folks up to this very fact, indeed. Rather eye-opening the two of them side by side, even if you do discount the whole plagarism thing. In certain circles, that clip might just do the job -- in the general especially, should he make it that far -- to burst the bubble they speak of. I mean, if it's just the fancy phrases and historical skin color you're voting on, folks...
A lot of people do believe him--that's why they're inspired--but you, you arrogant schmuck, know better than they do, don't you?
No. An ability to recognise good ideas in others and use them yourself is at least as important an ability as originality.
To quote Newton: "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
Human civilisation has achieved the successes it has because we can and do learn from each other, not because in isolation we are all geniuses.
No.
reposted without further comment.
Like Obama[,] Patrick attended Harvard Law School where he apparently he didn’t learn much about the First Amendment because he thinks the FHA can trump the US Constitution. If this a taste of what we will get with an Obama administration? What kind of people will he appoint to DOJ? The same type as Reagan, Bush 41, Bill Clinton, and Bush 43 all appointed, with slight variations in which rights are infringed first.
After marrying the Attorney General of Arkansas she became an associate of a leading Arkansasa law firm;
after her husband became governor she was made a partner in that firm and exercised her financial talents to make large profits in various option trading and real estate deals;
when her husband became president she made significant forays into various national policy arenas--most notably health care;
with minor campaign assistance from her husband (obtaining financial and electoral support from financiers such as Marc Rich and electoral support from the Puerto Rican terrorist and Hasidic con artist communities of New York) she became junior senator from the Empire State.
All this right-wing harping from Senator Obama and his supporters is just an attempt to denigrate a true feminist who has shown the heights a powerful and driven woman can achieve on her own and against the conspiritorial machinations of the patriarchy.
I'm sure you are exhausted, since every criticism of a liberal is portrayed as a vicious and unfair attack, and whined about incessantly.
news.yahoo.com reprinting The Nation
Or, if you don't trust The Nation, here's AP:
news.yahoo.com reprinting the AP
"Hillary - Change"
Talk about plagiarism.... Wait for Obama to say "I'm the best candidate because I spent time in the White House with my husband," then you'll have a case.
No comment of my own here, but see Sam Goldwyn quoted above. As to hope and change, the main (potential) accomplishment of Governor Patrick in Massachusetts is the introduction of gambling to pad the state budget (not that there is anything wrong with gambling, mind you)
Visitor Again seems stung when facing harsh realities, such as Professor Somin writes about, to the effect that most voters are grossly ignorant and easily swayed by meaningless rhetoric. Perhaps he can include himself among them. He can apologize in 4 years when, I expect, we'll look back and say, "What hope?"
Naah, but I do think it's amusing that someone who calls himself "Thoughtful" has the effrontery to believe the millions of voters thus far inspired by Obama's speeches are rubes merely because, apparently unlike them, he, Thoughful, somehow knows Obama doesn't really believe those words.
The "meaningless rhetoric" Obama invoked:
"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?"
Thoughtful's comment:
He did not go on to say, though no doubt he could have, "And, it's not like either of us believe this stuff anyway; it's just what we tell the rubes to get elected."
(Alas, the national security issue would be a real problem. You need much more than "hope" to be Commander in Chief.)
Clinton appointed Patrick. As for the others, which one appointed someone to DOJ that thought the legislature can trump the First Amendment?
I suspect that Obama will give appointments like Patrick. People who will try to shut you up using the full force of government. They will say, “Your speech is hate speech, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.” La Raza has already done this with the help of ADL. La Raza demands CNN fire Lou Dobbs because he dared to put someone on his news program that disagrees with the La Raza. When Obama is asked about illegal immigration all he can say is “don’t scapegoat.”
I don't think Hillary is a conservative. I think she is doing something that some liberals think conservatives do that we don't think is fair. I would like liberal candidates who don't emulate things about conservatives that I don't like.
And please, can people stop using the phrase “ad hominem attack”? It’s not a fancy way to say “insult.” If you want to say insult, then say it. You don’t need to pretty-up your language to sound more intelligent.
I agree. "Always vote for gridlock" --anonymous
The only upside to having a large conservative population entirely ignorant of world politics is that the rest of us can save time by safely ignoring the opinion of anyone who uses the word "socialist" (or its variants) with respect to any mainstream democratic politician.
Of course liberals hate the 1st Amendment, while on the other hand, conservatives always recognize that censorship is against the Constitution. That is the reason people on the Right are resolutely against banning flag burning and pornography and never ever say things like the NY Times hates America because it printed details about warrantless surveillance. Conservatives are very consistent in standing up for our God-given right to freedom of expression in cases like these.
'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?'"
He did indeed invoke someone else's rhetoric. Apparently he puts himself in the company of some pretty famous people. Now, when will he say something comparable? Until then, his are just words.
People on the Right are hardly paragons of virtue when it comes to the First Amendment. But they did not give us campus speech codes. For the record, I think flag burning is a form of protected symbolic speech. I don’t want pornography banned, nor would I want any kind of prior restraint against the NYT.
Sigh...OK. Let's take as serious the proposition that politicians for high office (or were you affronted merely by attributing this to St. Obama?) sincerely believe all the pledges and promises they make in running for office.
In that case, since they rarely if ever accomplish even 10% of what they claim they will accomplish, do you attribute that to a) gross incompetence or b) an evil system preventing them from accomplishing their noble goals? If the latter, given that the system has been this way for many decades, don't you think it's morally reprehensible to suggest to the voters that, unlike every other candidate in the last several decades, they will be able to succeed when everyone else failed?
Perhaps you're beginning to see that the claim "politicians do not routinely believe the claims they make to get elected" is simply an application of Occam's razor.
Second, the problem is speechwriters sell their words to those who buy them. Those words become the property of the politicians and therefore theirs. So using speechwriters is not the samething as copying from someone else. Also a speechwriter never goes out and reads those speeches he writes, they are used directly by the one person who bought them, thus again not like Obama and deval.