Ask Not (JFK's Inauguration Speech) Thurston Clarke..

Ask Not: The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the Speech That Changed America
Thurston Clarke
New York: Henry Holt and Company
2004

Why read it? The origin, contributions to, political backstabbing and delivery of Kennedy's Inauguration Address. A good summary of the character of JFK and the politicians with whom he had to deal. Raises the question: Are public and private morality unrelated? The question is raised by JFK's marital infidelities as opposed to his political integrity.

Another question raised by the book is the relationship between the people writing and/or speaking and those who help. JFK was challenged on his authorship of Profiles in Courage. Most people seem to assume that that book and Kennedy's speeches were all written by Ted Sorenson. With Profiles, Sorensen did much of the research and he suggests that the retelling of events was probably his, but the spirit of the book, the openings and closings were JFK's. With whom did the idea for the book originate? The author suggests that it is modeled on a book by Churchill, Great Contemporaries, published in 1923. The author makes clear that throughout his political life, JFK was influenced by Churchill's writing and language.

Sample ideas from the book:
JFK certainly did not attribute sources of ideas, but, in fact, ideas can not be copyrighted, so legally he did nothing wrong. The book is filled with incidents of his not attributing ideas and even words that he used including the sources of ideas for his inaugural speech--Adlai Stevenson, Gore Vidal, John Kenneth Galbraith, etc. However, any kind of footnoting would have destroyed the unity of the speech and would certainly have destroyed the effect when it was being read. JFK could, however, at least in the written version, have recognized the many people who had contributed ideas to the speech.

When is a writer the actual author of the work? If you explore ideas with others, are they then contributing authors? What about the role of editors? If the ideas are yours, does the editor's advice on expression, grammar, etc., make the editor a contributing author?

Raymond Moley, FDR's speechwriter, made the point clearly that, as far as presidential speeches go, it's the man giving the speech who is responsible for its content and responsible for carrying out its promises. The author suggests that FDR sometimes read Moley's versions without making changes.

However, in JFK's case, he produced the final copy after editing and changing significant words and ideas. He and Sorensen first discussed the speech and its emphases. JFK changed the openings and closings and edited and changed the contents. I think JFK was the author of his written works and his speeches even if others, notably Sorensen, collaborated with him as source of ideas, research and editing . The final version was JFK's.

Summary (1): The book depicts an era when Americans looked proudly at themselves and agreed with the direction set by their young President. His speech set a tone of idealism for the American people.

Summary (2): The book is a hilarious summary of the backstabbing, pettiness and grudge-bearing of politics.

Summary (3): JFK's separating public and private morality causes me to question my belief that they cannot be separated. Both are involved in character. JFK and Clinton both believed public and private morality could be separated. Both were considered good presidents. Both were philanderers in their private lives. Should a President's moral failures in private life be considered when judging their effectiveness as Presidents/leaders? Did private immorality interfere with the public performance of their duties?