The Power of Speech

Speaking truth to Power

The phrase "speaking truth to power" goes back to 1955, when the American Friends Service Committee published Speak Truth to Power, a pamphlet ii at proposed a new approach to the Cold War. Its title, which came to Friend Milton Mayer toward the end of the week in summer 1954 when the composing committee finished work on the document, has become almost a cliche; it has become common far beyond Quaker circles, often used by people who have no idea of its origins. (One current example: Anita Hill entitled her memoir of her sensational charges of sexual harassment against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, Speaking Truth to Power.)
To speak truth to power sounds so much like an integral part of Quakerism that some modem Friends have simply assumed the phrase goes back to the seventeenth century rather than arriving late in the middle of ours. It reflects what many contemporary Friends would like to believe is the characteristic Quaker stance toward political authority, hallowed in practice if not the exact words. Yet in its origins it was a political statement, entitling an explicitly political document.
The origin of the phrase “speaking truth to power” was a 1955 Quaker pamphlet written about the Cold War.  In more recent times, Anita Hill used the phrase as a title for her book.  To speak truth to power is a phrase associated with the independent spirit of the American political process.  We have a tradition of speaking truth to power associated with such diverse figures from Theodore Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Bobby Kennedy to Martin Luther King, and Huey Long or John McCain.

These individuals have spoken truth to power in the context of war and peace, or from civil rights to environmental issues.  In this context, we are now approaching a contest where the two candidates have an opportunity to speak truth to power.  Because the projected winners of both contests were not the traditional party machine candidates but instead two unique individuals who at times have broken from the traditional mold and taken positions that were not in “lockstep” with the accepted party line.

John McCain has often portrayed himself as a “maverick” who rides on the “straight-talk” express.  Yet during this primary season, and through the past eight years, he had slowly backed down and shied away from most of the formerly espoused ideals he held that made him a maverick whose idol was Teddy Roosevelt.


In the same vein, a major reason many people, myself included, could not support the Clinton candidacy was the belief that the entrenched power of  traditional party machine politics would drown any message of change that was espoused by the candidate.  The “baggage” connected with the Clintons could not be overlooked. 

And most recently, we had a good example of these two promoting a “gas tax holiday” that was by all accounts seen as a campaign gimmick by most of the economists and even the voters.  How extraordinary to see two individuals from the entrenched interests of both parties “tag-teaming” to promote a policy that not only encourages and feeds the dependency on oil to the American public but also glosses over the hard choices and sacrifice involved in speaking out on our need to wean ourselves from dependency on oil.