The first two days of the 2016 Republican National Convention produced just as many case studies in plagiarism: first Melania Trump's appropriation of words and themes from Michelle Obama's speech to the DNC eight year earlier and then Donald, Jr.'s recitation of words that had recently appeared in The American Conservative by another author both raised the specter of plagiarism, but they both produced ironies that undercut their very messages about work and integrity.In the case of Melania Trump, journalists quickly came to her defense of having been done in by a careless speechwriter or a saboteur. The point being, "of course, she didn't write that speech herself." The plot thickened, however, when Ms. Trump explained that she had largely written the speech herself and the assisting speechwriter in question protested that the controversial parts of the speech delivered were not in his speech draft; in fact, the speech writers suggest little of what was written was in the final speech. Perhaps Ms. Trump read Ms. Obama's remarks in preparation—not a bad idea, by the way—and succumbed to a bout of cryptomnesia, when persons forgets having read/heard an idea and believe it to be their own. Regardless, Ms. Trump was accused of plagiarism, and we started getting details about her use of speech writers.
Further, the irony of the words stolen is its own problem. When Ms. Trump says, "the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them," as a riff on Ms. Obama's, "the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them," she plagiarizes a proclamation about working hard. When Donald Trump's campaign has had to frame a billionaire and his family as akin to the hard-working, blue collar workers, stealing words about hard work is ironic and counterintuitive.
Mr. Trump—the junior—has a related, if different, problem. When the reports came out that a passage from his speech matched a passage from a recent article by F. H. Buckley, stories quickly accused Mr. Trump of plagiarism. Not to worry, Mr. Buckley defended, "I was a principal speechwriter for the speech. . . . it's not an issue." But it is.
First there is the minor matter of self-plagiarism—reusing/recycling one's own words—that can be offensive for different reasons: at colleges and universities, it is frowned upon by faculty as an act of a student short cutting an assignment's goals; legally, it can be a violation of the copyright authors often hand over to their publishers who thereby own the words written; and intellectually, it suggests a limit to one's creative abilities. Let's ignore all that, if for no other reason than any of those claims are more on the speechwriter than the speech giver.
The second, and more problematic issue is the stepping out of the speech writer from behind the curtain. Mr. Trump's speech emphasized that he and his siblings understood hard work because they had worked on job sites and could do the nitty gritty themselves; except the speech reminds us that's not entirely true. I'm hardly condemning any of the Trumps for using speechwriters; speechwriters are a well accepted part of public politics and largely beneficial to help people express their ideas as effectively as possible. Rather, I am pointing to the irony in the Trumps' desire to project the image of themselves as wealthy but not having become successful by using what money can buy when, in fact, we have been reminded twice in as many days that they do buy help.
The Trumps' speeches, like those we will hear the DNC next week, have professional help from hired hands. As we heard Mr. Trump talk about the more valued advice of the construction site workers over "the guys from Harvard and Wharton locked away in offices away from the real work," we are hearing the words written by an accomplished law professor from George Mason University. He essential eschewed "egg heads" and "stuffed shirt advisers" by having one write the dis for him.
I suggest these stories about plagiarism are embarrassing because the events have forced the Trumps to discuss their use of speechwriters, that they rely upon skilled, educated professionals to craft words for them and that they too lean on the crutch of the professional politicians—as we are often led to think about speech writers. When the Trumps have been wanting to brand themselves as self-sufficient and hardworking without the use of money, the reminder of the help money buys is a little ironic and not exactly on message.
