User:Meh412/The Rhetorical Presidency

The rhetorical presidency is a political communication theory used to describe a communication and governance style of the U.S. presidency in the twentieth century. It is both a structural theory and a theory of how presidents communicate, drawing from the fields of political science, history, and communication studies (rhetoric). The rhetorical presidency is a structural genre of presidential rhetoric, and "a product of the twentieth century generally and of the media age in particular." While presidential rhetoric encompasses the broad avenues of presidential communication and persuasion, the rhetorical presidency examines a change in the office of the presidency, a change that suggests different communication patterns for the U.S. president.

Jeffrey Tulis wrote the foundational book on the rhetorical presidency, although the term was derived from an article he published with three co-authors six years earlier. Political scientists James Ceaser, Glen E. Thurow, Jeffrey Tulis, and Joseph Bessette introduced the term "rhetorical presidency" in a 1981 Presidential Studies Quarterly article. Tulis later expanded these ideas in his book, The Rhetorical Presidency. Instead of presidents speaking and trying to persuade Congress or other government elites, Tulis argued that presidents in the twentieth century were expected to “defend themselves publicly, to promote policy initiatives nationwide, and to inspirit the population.”  Communicating with the public and gaining their support for policy initiatives becomes an “essential task” of the presidency.

Historical Development
Tulis argues the rhetorical presidency began with the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Since their time, "popular or mass rhetoric has become a principal tool of presidential government." The president appeals directly to the people, and the people then pressure Congress on behalf of the president and his policies. Tulis argued that this change in presidential communication and leadership represented a “true transformation” of the presidency. Far from "questioning" this approach, Tulis noted, "intellectuals and columnists have embraced the concept and appear to be constantly calling for more or better leadership of popular opinion" from the White House. The rhetorical presidency suggests that U.S. citizens believe that their presidents should be popular leaders—in other words, that the president should address the people directly, explaining initiatives and raising support for political policies.

Nineteenth Century Presidential Rhetoric
Presidential rhetoric has changed from its nineteenth century incarnation. In the nineteenth century, presidents primarily engaged in official and ceremonial rhetoric. Policy rhetoric was written, rather than spoken, and directed towards Congress. For example, the State of the Union Address—called a “Special Message” in the nineteenth century—was written, rather than spoken, by the president to Congress. Most presidential communication came from executive orders and proclamations, both written for the elite government audience rather than the general public of the United States. Furthermore, proclamations tended to “proclaim” rather than persuade and explain. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Tulis notes, did not “justify” itself nor present a case; it declared the slaves free. Inaugural addresses were one of the few public speeches given by a president. Exceptions to these conventions were discouraged by politicians in Congress. For example, when President Andrew Jackson attempted to appeal to the American people directly regarding the National Bank, Daniel Webster repudiated him: “But if the President were now to meet us with a speech, and should inform us of measures, adopted by himself in the recess, which should appear to use the most plain, palpable, and dangerous violation of the Constitution, we must, nevertheless, either keep respectful silence, or fill our answer merely with courtly phrases of approbation.”  As this instance demonstrates, U.S. politicians feared popular appeals by a president, a fear dating back to the concerns of James Madison in the Federalist Papers #49. Many political elite of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries believed that popular appeals from the president to the people could result in demagoguery in the presidency and an unconstitutional expansion of presidential powers.

The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency
According to Tulis, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson represent the bridge between the "old way" of presidential rhetoric and the "new way," the rhetorical presidency. Roosevelt's presidency involved a variety of social and economic initiatives, including the "Square Deal." Roosevelt developed a "middle way" of communicating to the public, a "moderate use of popular rhetoric, moderate appeals for moderate reform (that did not socialize but merely regulated industrial capitalism), and most importantly, an appeal to moderate disputes" among America's economic classes. Roosevelt created a new order of statesmanship where he used popular rhetoric from the presidency to advance a political agenda, but also to denounce and discredit radicalism and demagoguery. Wilson further transformed Roosevelt's bully pulpit into the "new way" of the rhetorical presidency. Wilson not only used popular rhetoric, but changed the ways that presidential rhetoric was directed and used. He stopped addressing Congress in written documents, and instead directed his policy rhetoric to the people at large. Tulis explained, "Truly important speeches would be delivered orally, where the visible and audible performance would become as important as the prepared text." Congress would be approached alongside the people, rather than Congress governing and informing the people of a policy. Wilson also established two forms of speeches that are common in the rhetorical presidency: the "visionary" speech, which would "articulate a picture of the future and impel a populace toward it," and the "policy-stand" speech, which communicates "where the president stood or what he would do regarding issues of the day." Examples of the visionary speech would be the inaugural addresses of Wilson and later, John F. Kennedy. An example of the policy-stand speech can be found in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society speech given in Ann Arbor.

The rhetorical presidency was primarily conceived of as a structural transformation, grounded in constitutional principles. The modern presidency is governed by two "constitutions." The first is the original constitution of 1789, which suggests that the president must abide by his or her constitutionally delineated powers. The second constitution, as explained by Tulis, represents an expansion of executive powers that is in contrast to the limited powers of the 1789 Constitution. The second constitution, therefore, encouraged the "rise of the rhetorical presidency--the use of popular speech addressed to mass audiences for the purpose of circumventing or bypassing congressional deliberation." The president is no longer appealing to and checked by Congress, but rather appealing to the people, who then put pressure on Congress to enact legislation.

The development of mass media also contributed to the rise of the rhetorical presidency. First radio, then television, and now the Internet allow the presidency to connect with the citizen public in ever-expanding ways. The rise of mass media has granted the president enormous access to public airwaves.

The twentieth century president possesses "rhetorical power," a "very special case of executive power" that "can defend the use of force and other executive powers." In the rhetorical presidency, communication not only informs or persuades, but also constitutes the very people that the president is supposed to address, "furnishing them" with "metaphors, categories, and concepts of political discourse" used to define and understand the political issues of the day. A speaker is using constitutive rhetoric when he or she constructs their audience in the speech, using discourse to suggest or create a collective identity for an audience. This identity might facilitate persuasion and action. The rhetorical presidency, therefore, offers the president the opportunity to constitute the values and desires of the U.S. public. Communication has become one of the most powerful tools of the presidency. Studying and understanding the rhetorical presidency emphasizes the ability of the president to use popular appeals to govern.

Limits of the Rhetorical Presidency
Tulis cautioned that the rhetorical presidency does have limits. If a president is misleading in his popular rhetoric, as Woodrow Wilson was in the Pueblo Speech encouraging support for the League of Nations, the policy makers may ignore the appeals of the public and instead cast the president as a liar with confusing and contradictory positions. The rhetorical presidency may also have negative effects on democratic deliberation and governance. Lyndon Johnson's masterful labeling of his domestic reform agenda as a "War on Poverty" silenced opposition in Congress, since no government official wished to be seen as supporting poverty. The result was a "hastily packaged program." Because Johnson directly supported and appealed for the program, his rhetoric ensured "that he and not Congress would be blamed if the program failed. And fail it did." When the president obtains popular support for a policy, he may eliminate Congressional debate and approval, eroding the deliberative process.

Furthermore, the development of mass media has heightened the stakes of the rhetorical presidency. Presidential speeches made to the public are increasingly becoming "the issues and events of modern politics rather than the medium through which issues and events are discussed and assessed." The rhetorical presidency has developed from the use of popular leadership under Roosevelt to the "routine appeal to public opinion" under more recent presidents. A result of this is a rise in "crisis rhetoric" in the presidency, where presidents turn each policy initiative into a crisis so as to attract the attention and support of the public.

Rhetorical critic Martin J. Medhurst has articulated a major concern with Tulis’ theory. “[T]he construct" of the rhetorical presidency . . . seems to presume that there was once a nonrhetorical presidency.”  This notion was amended by Tulis, who later argued, “all presidents are rhetorical presidents.”   The rhetorical presidency, therefore, finds most of its case studies in the twentieth century, but there were acts of popular appeals and mass communication before Roosevelt and Wilson.  In response to this concern, communication scholars recently published the volume Before the Rhetorical Presidency, suggesting that even before presidents used mass communication and mass appeals, there were “rhetorical presidencies.”

Responses to the Rhetorical Presidency
Tulis' book was primarily received in the fields of political science and communication. While political scientists questioned components of Tulis' theory, scholars in speech communication embraced and expanded the concept.

Responses in Political Science
One of the most notable challenges to the rhetorical presidency was by political scientist George C. Edwards III. He argues that the study of the rhetorical presidency, and more broadly, political rhetoric, rests on the assumption that “rhetoric matters—not just to the speaker, but, most importantly, to the audience.”  From Edwards’ perspective, therefore, the rhetorical presidency is a flawed understanding of government since presidential communication has no known effect. Empirically, it is difficult to demonstrate that a presidential address has a direct impact on citizens or on a particular policy. Edwards ultimately concluded that presidential rhetoric may have some influence on public policy, but we simply “do not know nearly enough about the impact of rhetoric” to suggest that the rhetorical presidency is a good framework for viewing presidential leadership and communication. Edwards' concern demonstrates the divide between empirical, social scientific research and humanistic methods of rhetorical scholarship. Social science scholars want first to prove that presidential communication may have demonstrable effects, whereas communication scholars have considered the way presidential discourse may impact public communication outside a strict cause-and-effect model.

However, many political scientists have found that Edwards account misses the fact that presidential rhetoric may matter in ways that cannot be measured by public opinion polls. Paul Quirk, for example, argues that speeches that barely move public opinion overall may nevertheless create an avalanche of pressure on Congress, and may change the reigning political narrative.

Twenty five years after its original publication, The Rhetorical Presidency, remains the classic work on its subject, and a major book in political science generally. Jeffrey Friedman, editor of a retrospective evaluation by fifteen political scientists writes, "It is one of the two or three most important and perceptive works written by a political scientist in the twentieth century -- and it is the one that may help the most to explain the pathological aspects of modern politics -- not only in the United States, but in all social democracies."

Responses in Communication Studies
Communication scholars have not wholly embraced the rhetorical presidency, but it has prompted several avenues of scholarship. In the introduction of Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, rhetorical critic Martin J. Medhurst expressed concern over the use of the term rhetoric by Tulis and his colleague: They suggest that rhetoric is substituted “for, or as a false form of, political action rather than as being, in and of itself, a type of action—symbolic action.” The rhetorical presidency, therefore, seems to suggest that presidential communication—rhetoric—is less meaningful than “policy-oriented rhetoric.”   There are, Medhurst argued, differences between those who study the rhetorical presidency and those who study presidential rhetoric. Those who study the presidency might be content to examine the structural nature of the rhetorical presidency. Those who study rhetoric, however, would be more likely to examine the rhetorical presidency as “the particular arena within which one can study the principles and practices of rhetoric, understood as the human capacity to see what is most likely to be persuasive to a given audience on a given occasion.” This construct of presidential rhetoric encourages a nuanced reading of discourse, where understanding the rhetorical situation is paramount to creating a rhetorical act.

Scholars of communication have defined the differences between presidential rhetorical and the rhetorical presidency. Martin J. Medhurst has suggested that the difference is primarily based on the principal subject of investigation. "If one conceives the principal subject of investigation to be rhetoric rather than the presidency, then the nature, scope, and presumptions change rather radically. Under this construct, the presidency is the particular arena within which one can study the principles and practices of rhetoric. . . ."  Those who study the rhetorical presidency usually come from political science, and there concern is in the "nature, scope, and function of the presidency in a constitutional office." Communication scholars are more interested in studying the discourse that comes from that office, which is to say, they are interested in how the president persuades. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson have integrated these two perspectives in their book, Deeds Done in Words. They "look at the presidency as an institution in which rhetoric plays a major role, asking what can be discovered if we assume that the character has been created, sustained, and altered through time by the nature of the presidency as an institution."

One follow-up to the theory of the rhetorical presidency is the expansion of understanding of the presidency and public communication. Through presidential communication, a president actualizes his or her role as the most powerful political leader in the United States. David Zarefsky claimed that, contrary to Edwards’s concerns, presidential rhetoric--and therefore, claims made from within the rhetorical presidency--does make a difference and can have some impact on public discourse. In fact, presidential rhetoric—going public—often “defines political reality” in the United States. Zarefsky noted that social realities and their characteristics are not given, but chosen “from among multiple possibilities,” a viewpoint consistent with social constructionism. The dominant characterization of reality “will depend on choices made by political actors,” such as the president’s articulation of and an audience’s reaction to a particular reality.

Other scholars have further expanded the conception of the rhetorical presidency. Thomas W. Benson has argued that with the development of Internet technologies, the rhetorical presidency may be "fragmented into sound bites," so many sound bites that "we cannot read it all in a normal citizen's day." Karlyn Kohrs Campbell has added important understanding of the office of the presidency by arguing that the First Lady of the United States has an important function in the rhetorical presidency. In modern times, the First Lady is "expected to espouse a cause or project." The First Lady's cause demands public support, like the rhetorical presidency, but her task of gaining that support is hindered by the mix of public and private roles of the presidential wife. Other scholars have used an understanding of the rhetorical presidency and subsequent scholarship to produce case studies of presidential communication. A list of these is below.

New Directions of Research
The challenge for both political science and communication scholars is to consider new paths of research. The Report of the National Task Force on the Theory and Practice of the Rhetorical Presidency identified several paths for future research in an essay published in the 2008 book, The Prospect of Presidential Rhetoric. They noted that the presidency is an important site for research because it "allows researchers to focus on classification problems in relation to the rhetorical presidency," and because it "allows researchers to explore the relationship between presidential power and rhetoric." The first of these paths has been addressed by scholars who argue that there has always been a rhetorical presidency, long before Roosevelt and Wilson took power. Additionally, the task force also recommended that scholars consider the possibilities of a post-modern presidency, of the rhetorical presidency in the digital age, and of a visual rhetorical presidency. They also encouraged avenues of research that assume the presidency has rhetorical power, as Tulis suggested, but inquire as to how that power works to shape and create public opinion.

Future research should also expand the work of Thomas W. Benson on how technology is changing the twentieth-century rhetorical presidency in this century. For example, the ability of presidents to connect with the public through e-mail and podcasts suggests that the rhetorical presidency may be " 'going private' as well as going public." How does the rhetorical presidency change when a president can send one email to different identity groups and segments of the U.S. voting public?

Political science researchers on the rhetorical presidency should continue to examine if mass appeal and popular rhetoric has any effect on policy. This research should also draw from the work of democratic deliberation scholars to consider if the rhetorical presidency has impacts on democracy.

The rhetorical presidency also has relatively unexplored connections to public sphere theory, as well as the presidency and national identity. Mary E. Stuckey in Defining Americans: The Presidency and National Identities and Vanessa B. Beasley in You the People: American National Identity in Presidential Rhetoric have begun exploring the connections between national identity and the presidency. The Task Force on the Theory and Practice of the Rhetorical Presidency suggests, however, that "because their approaches are so different, both warrant attention for the instruction and direction they offer." More attention should be paid to "us" and "we" appeals that "define our national identity."

Rhetorical Presidency Bibliography

 * Benson, Thomas W. “Desktop Demos: New Communication Technologies and the Future of the Rhetorical Presidency.” In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996, 50-76.


 * Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. “The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person Career.” In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996, 179-198.


 * Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society. Special Double Issue on The Rhetorical Presidency after 25 Years. Vol. 19 (2007) Nos.2-3.


 * Crockett, David A. “George W. Bush and the Unrhetorical Rhetorical Presidency.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6 (2003): 465-486.


 * Dorsey, Leroy. “The Rhetorical Presidency and the Myth of the American Dream.” In The Prospect of Presidential Rhetoric, eds. James Arnt Aune and Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2008, 130-159.


 * Edwards, George C. On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.


 * Edwards, George C. “Presidential Rhetoric: What Difference Does It Make?” In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996, 199-217.


 * Ellis, Richard J. Speaking to the People: The Rhetorical Presidency in Historical Perspective. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998.


 * Ellis, Richard J. and Alexis Walker. “Policy Speech in the Nineteenth Rhetorical Presidency: The Case of Zachary Taylor’s 1849 Tour.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 37 (2007): 248-269.


 * Friedman, Jeffrey and Shterna Friedman eds. Rethinking the Rhetorical Presidency. London and New York: Routledge, 2012.


 * Ivie, Robert L. “Tragic Fear and the Rhetorical Presidency: Combating Evil in the Persian Gulf.” In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996, 153-178.


 * Gronbeck, Bruce E. “The Presidency in the Age of Secondary Orality.” In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996, 30-49.


 * Hoffman, Karen. “‘Going Public’ in the Nineteenth Century: Grover Cleveland’s Repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5 (2002): 57-77.


 * Medhurst, Martin J., ed. The Rhetorical Presidency of George H. W. Bush. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006.


 * Murphy, Chad. “The Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: A Critical Response.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 38 (2008): 300-307.


 * Parry-Giles, Shawn J. The Rhetorical Presidency, Propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002.


 * Parry-Giles, Shawn J. and Trevor Parry-Giles. “Collective Memory, Political Nostalgia, and the Rhetorical Presidency: Bill Clinton’s Commemoration of the March on Washington, August 28, 1998.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 86 (2000): 417-437.


 * Peterson, Tarla Rai. Green Talk in the White House: The Rhetorical Presidency Encounters Ecology. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004.


 * Ryan, Halford Ross. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Rhetorical Presidency. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.


 * Schaefer, Todd M. “The ‘Rhetorical Presidency’ Meets the Press: The New York Times and the State of the Union Message.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76 (1999): 516-530.


 * Stuckey, Mary. “Establishing the Rhetorical Presidency through Presidential Rhetoric: Theodore Roosevelt and the Brownsville Raid.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 92 (2006): 287-309.


 * Thurow, Glen E. “Dimensions of Presidential Character.” In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996, 15-29.


 * Tulis, Jeffrey K. "Reflections on the Rhetorical Presidency in American Political Development." In Speaking to the People, ed. Richard J. Ellis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998, 211-223.


 * Tulis, Jeffrey K. “Revisiting the Rhetorical Presidency.” In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A&M University, 1996, 1-14.


 * Tulis, Jeffrey K. "The Rhetorical Presidency in Retrospect." In Rethinking the Rhetorical Presidency, eds. Jeffrey Friedman and Shterna Friedman. London and New York: Routledge, 2012, 266-285