Oppenheimer and the Speechwriters.
08/18/2119.
Washington, D.C. USA.
So, gentlemen, - Oppenheimer began, - first I will answer the main question that you are probably wondering - why did I gather you together? - the president looked at all five "speechwriters".
Oppenheimer himself called them speechwriters, in fact, each was from his own structural unit, and the competencies of both the specialists themselves and the units extended somewhat wider than the definition of "speechwriter". It was more correct to call them consultants.
- In the last few months, I personally have identified a number of weak points in the logical basis of what you have provided to me, and not only me. In particular ... - the president raised his voice, wanting to emphasize the importance of what was to be said next.
- Let's start in ascending order. The Secretary of State, visiting one of the enterprises, mentioned conversion. At the same time, he expressed himself in the vein that a full-fledged conversion of the War would be ensured by the reorganization of the rear structures. Doesn't anyone mind that this is purely Harlington rhetoric? At the same time, the Secretary of State did not conduct a spontaneous conversation, but delivered a pre-prepared speech, so the question is not so much for him as... - Oppenheimer switched to an almost mocking tone.
- I watch TV - I find a mistake, - he continued, - Yes, there were also a number of comments in the Republican press, - the president again returned to his previous measured style of speech. - Everything would be fine, this is essentially nothing more than a gaffe, but now we are going in ascending order.
- Episode number two. Yesterday, at a weekly conference, the White House press secretary makes a statement, which, in particular, contains words about the fact that the presidential administration clearly regards the formation of a long-term mobilization economy as a threat to civil liberties and freedom of enterprise in particular. Now as it should be. We do not consider this as a threat. A soldier cannot consider his weapon as a threat, although it is dangerous. This is my explanation, there is no need to say this. It should be said: "We are looking for development paths that, in the conditions of an emerging and already largely formed mobilization economy with places, what can I deny, directive control, will allow us to further expand the sector of non-systemic business, which is largely of a purely civilian nature." Do you feel the difference? In the first, incorrect case, we do not want to, because it is dangerous. In the second, we do not want to, but we do, at the same time looking for an opportunity to do it differently or something else in addition, so that it is not so unpleasant and dangerous.
Well, now the most interesting part. Looking through the next text, I will not dwell on which one exactly, you know it yourself, I was suddenly surprised to find several resonant statements about Russian affairs. About Lebedev in particular. How is everything in reality? How is it for us? In Russia, there is the speaker of parliament Lebedev and there is also the Siberian Superfederant, a ghetto in confrontation with the majority of the Russian parliament, and, accordingly, with the government of this parliamentary, even super-parliamentary republic. Superfederant against Super-Parliament. Lebedev does not like Superfederant. Harlington likes Superfederant because he intends to make a rating on it, including it in his tour. What do we have as a result? Is Lebedev on our side or not? It is so simple. - Gentlemen, are you really unable to keep ten points in your head? A normal, typical citizen and voter will not pay attention to this, but we have one important event in a year. And before him, that is, before the elections, there will be someone to point out even such trifles to the average American.
All five sat with stony expressions. It was not that Oppenheimer's dressing down had an especially depressing effect on them, it was just that each of them had long ago, long before that day, come to the conclusion that it was better to listen silently and not blabber too much, not to show any initiative on how to fix and improve all this.
- It sometimes seems to me, - Oppenheimer continued, - that it would be a rather rational decision to refuse any services of specialized specialists, and to personally prepare all my and other official speeches with the help of AI. I realize that nothing will come of it and that professional interaction with AI, without wasting a ton of time on it, is also necessary to be able to do, but the bad thing is that I have such ideas.
I sincerely do not understand what the matter is. Three of you, - he listed the names of three consultants, - worked on my team during the last elections. What happened to you? Have you relaxed or something?
- At the present time, - Clayton began, - large-scale work is underway to develop new solutions in forming a vision of the Military Process for at least the next five years.
Clayton was formally the head of the entire group. Oppenheimer sometimes called him not the head, but the "leader of the speechwriters".
- To put it simply, another business game has been organized, - Oppenheimer described Clayton's words in his own way.
- To some extent, this is a staff game. A staff economic game. At the present time, our entire team is really in a state of uncertainty, multi-vector. I would like to remind you that although we often proceed from what the average voter, the citizen, wants to hear, in recent years this, if it is correct to say so, audience has been steadily expanding beyond the boundaries of a specific political nation, that is, ours, the American one. That is why it is often possible to really find a diversity of vectors in a vision of both the Military Process and economic particulars that seems to be carefully brought to a single direction. This is fixable and will be fixed.
- If this business game is capable of fixing everything so much, then maybe it should have been conducted... and such ones should have been conducted before that. Although what am I talking about? Such studies are already conducted regularly. Is it any different from what you are already doing?
- I mean staff studies conducted within the framework of private initiatives, - answered Clayton, - In this case, we are talking about work carried out with the support of a foundation associated with the GBA. This is not a government program.
- Oh, that? - the president responded almost apathetically. - You should have said so right away. What they do... Their aims are too long-term. If we needed such training, I would set the tasks, so to speak, from a more immediate time frame.
Oppenheimer did not want to discuss the topic of games and exercises any more. It had been clear for a long time, almost since the pre-war years, that constellations had outgrown national states, even the United States, and it was not worth trying to seriously influence their activities.
Nevertheless, the number one public figure in the entire political field of the Western Bloc nations was still the President of the United States. Since 2116, it was Lloyd Oppenheimer.
- I want to say something on the topic of what the voter wants or does not want to hear, - the president continued. - More than a century and a half ago, the world was engulfed in a global war, perceived by contemporaries as an unprecedented confrontation that put humanity on the brink of the abyss. In general, the same as now. So, the famous Prime Minister of Great Britain Churchill, addressing his fellow citizens, declared... - Oppenheimer once again told the story about Churchill, who could promise nothing to his people except a strong butthurt.
The President was aware that it would have made sense to refrain from comparing his figure with Churchill, but, having thought about it once, he rejected excessive modesty, and having done it once, twice and subsequently, he no longer hesitated.