Presidential Rhetoric

Overview

Presidential rhetoric has historically helped to shape public opinion on the presidency and on the men who have risen to that position. Before the early twentieth century, presidents addressed the public directly in campaign speeches and public appearances. In 1908, Teddy Roosevelt was the first to refer to the presidency as a "bully pulpit" while promoting his Square Deal. The State of the Union address to Congress has traditionally provided guidelines for presidential agendas. In 1933 in the early years of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the first of his fireside chats, communicating directly with his radio audience. On January 20, 1949, Harry Truman gave the first televised Inaugural Address, drawing an audience of ten million in an era when television was still a new medium. In 1952, Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson were the first political candidates to have their entire campaign covered by television cameras. For the next three decades, presidential rhetoric and television were closely linked, with ABC, CBS, and NBC all interrupting regular programming to carry presidential speeches without commercials. By the 1980s, however, cable television presented alternatives, and the number of Americans watching presidential addresses declined significantly. As the importance of presidential rhetoric diminished, presidents chose to deliver fewer formal televised speeches. Instead, presidents spoke to the public through interviews, on talk shows, in editorials, and through orchestrated media leaks. In the twenty-first century, presidents adopted social media's powerful new forums, including Facebook and X (formerly Twitter.)

The notion of the rhetorical presidency has been at the forefront of discussions of presidential rhetoric among political scientists and communication scholars since the 1981 publication of The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency by James Caesar, Glenn Thurow, Jeffrey Tulis, and Joseph M. Bassette. Since that time, some scholars have maintained that presidential rhetoric has become a means of creating problems rather than solving them (Lim, 2008). The possibility has been raised that presidents have begun using presidential rhetoric to conduct ongoing election campaigns for themselves and fellow party members. Indeed, Donald Trump has been shown to be far more at ease when involved in post-election campaigning than when engaged in traditional presidential rhetoric, which he openly mocked as both artificial and dull. In 1986, Samuel Kernell began talking about the success of presidents employing the rhetorical tool of "going public" to win public support for policies; thereby, forcing Congress to follow their leads. George H. W. Bush used this tactic to win support for his budget in October 1990.

Jeffrey Tulis revisited presidential rhetoric in 1987 in The Rhetorical Presidency, contending that since Woodrow Wilson, presidents are better described as hybrids. That hybridization has been advanced by the prevalence of divided governments in which at least one house of Congress has been controlled by the opposition party. At the core of the rhetorical presidency is the belief that the presidency was originally shaped by presidential powers assigned in Article II of the United States Constitution that limited presidential rhetoric and action. Scholars tend to agree that the presidency has been reformulated since the Constitution was written in 1787. Influences on that reformulation have included new concepts of presidential power, the surfacing of new media, and changes in the presidential selection process.

Jeffrey Tulis believed that a new presidential informality began with Teddy Roosevelt, which steadily eroded the old constitutional order. That erosion accelerated with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his legislative challenges to constitutional restrictions on presidential power and continued with his successors. In response to the Trump presidency and demonstrating the continued relevance of Tulis's landmark work, Princeton University Press reissued The Rhetorical Presidency in 2017 with a new forward by Russell Muirhead, the Roberts Clements Professor of Democracy and Politics at Dartmouth University. Muirhead suggests that Donald Trump, with his accusatory tweets "adorned with petty invective," has become the epitome of informality and proposes that Trump may have brought the rhetorical presidency to what may prove to be its breaking point. Muirhead concludes that a battle is taking place between the constitutional order expressed by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers on the one hand and Trump's populist rhetoric and "derogation of all who might disagree" with him on the other. He argues that if Madison and Hamilton win, the constitutional presidency will survive. Otherwise, it might be lost forever.

Discussions of the rhetorical presidency have generally dealt with the president as a White, ostensibly straight, generally upper-class male. Critics claim that the concept was made irrelevant with the election of Barack Obama in 2008 as the first African American president. Critics also point out that the entire concept of presidential rhetoric has been reshaped by cable television and the Internet. While some scholars tend to accept the concepts of the rhetorical presidency, others insist that it never existed in the first place.

It is generally accepted that presidents develop rhetorical styles in response to their own personalities and beliefs and as a result of public reactions to speeches and action. Wesley Widmaier (2015) believes that presidential rhetoric is often a response to the times in which presidents live. For that reason, many of the most famous speeches have been made during crises. Abraham Lincoln, who led the nation during the Civil War, is remembered for speeches such as the one in which he accepted the nomination at the Republican National Convention on June 16, 1858, invoking the biblical assertion that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is often cited as one of the most successful pieces of American presidential rhetoric: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Applications

Presidential rhetoric is particularly important when presidents are attempting to influence the opinions of members of the opposition party. The presidents who have been most successful in this rhetorical form are those who are able to formulate their messages according to core American beliefs on such subjects as democracy and fairness rather than on partisan viewpoints. However, politicians are more inclined to direct their rhetoric at their political bases. After the hurricane season of 2017, in which Texas and Puerto Rico were especially hard hit by catastrophic storms, the rhetoric of Donald Trump was vastly different in Texas, where he had carried 52.2 percent of the vote, than in Puerto Rico where he had lost the Republican primary (13.29 percent) to Marco Rubio (70.24 percent). Puerto Rico does not have a vote in general elections.

As the United States has become more politically divided with the rise of far-right politicians to positions of power, some scholars believe partisanship has come to signify recognition of a president's rhetoric. Cues provided by political elites are seen as more important than the strength of a particular argument. Other influences that affect the way the public responds to presidential rhetoric are the strength of opposing views, the nature of an issue, and opportunities provided by partisan environments (Cavalari, 2017).

In a 2015 examination of presidential rhetoric, Wesley Widmaier employed Daniel Kahneman's work in the field of social psychology to determine that fast-thinking rhetoric often results in excessive crusading by presidents. He argues that slow-thinking rhetoric, on the other hand, is more likely to employ intellectual processes that seek to fine-tune balances of power. Widmaier contends that presidential rhetoric is often a response to the rhetorical styles of presidential predecessors. Consequently, he describes the presidential rhetoric of Woodrow Wilson as idealistic, Franklin D. Roosevelt's as restrained, Harry Truman's as fervently anti-communistic, Dwight Eisenhower's as inclined toward retrenchment, John F. Kennedy's and George W. Bush's as crusading, Richard Nixon's as diplomatic, Ronald Reagan's as visionary, George H. W. Bush's and Bill Clinton's as readjusting, and Barack Obama's as pragmatic. Because of the need to offset the rhetoric of predecessors, Widmaier argues that balancer presidents frequently follow crusading presidents. He suggests that presidents such as Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, whose rhetoric is based on hubristic or emotional convictions, may create instability or crisis. Rhetoric may become a tool for dealing with crisis, as evidenced by Truman's rhetoric during the early days of the Cold War and George W. Bush's rhetoric in declaring the War on Terror after 9/11. On each occasion, Truman and Bush used rhetoric to convince Americans that they needed to choose between democracy and tyranny. By contrast, Obama suggested that it would be immodest for Americans to assume that the United States was capable of removing all the "evil, hardship, and pain" in the world.

Scholars who study presidential rhetoric have used the Flesch-Kincaid readability test to determine the grade-level of presidential speeches. That test, which counts syllables per word and words per sentence, was first employed by the United States Navy in the 1970s for recruiting and training purposes. Scholars have determined that until 1850, the majority of presidential speeches were ranked at college-level. Since the 1940s, however, readability scores have declined to sixth-grade level. That change is seen as a natural result of mandatory education and the democratization process rather than as a dumbing down of presidential rhetoric. Before 1850, most people who listened to presidential speeches were White, educated, property-owning males with strong feelings about civic responsibility. During the Progressive Era, major efforts toward becoming more democratic were made, including the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 that provided for direct election of senators and the Twentieth Amendment in 1920 that granted suffrage to White women. Moves toward a common American culture accompanied the introduction of radio in the 1930s and television in the 1950s.

As a result of the more democratic makeup of the electorate, presidents found that the best rhetoric was composed of simple words that led to emotional responses. Examples of successful rhetoric that employed this principle included Franklin Roosevelt's proclamation on March 4, 1933, in which he assured Americans the "only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and John Kennedy's call for action on January 20, 1961, that suggested that Americans should "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Presidential rhetoric scholars have noted that one of the most difficult speeches ever given according to the Flesch-Kincaid test, was George Washington's First Inaugural Address. An example from that speech includes the words, "Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties that those which the notification was transmitted by your order…"

Discourse

Scholars do not always agree on the significance of presidential rhetoric in determining whether or not a president will ultimately be viewed as successful. Some argue that rhetoric has often been employed as a means of achieving policy goals. Others contend that presidential rhetoric is irrelevant because of myriad influences on public opinion and the fickleness of those opinions. Scholars tend to agree that the most positive reactions to presidential rhetoric are found among members of the president's own party, and the most negative reactions are found among members of the opposition party. A number of scholars have found that individuals have a natural tendency to avoid negative impacts and may even discard "facts" to continue that avoidance (Miles, 2016). Avoidance was made easier during the Trump presidency with his tendency to regard anything that did not present him in a positive light as so-called fake news.

Stephen J. Heidt (2013) argues that the use of metaphors in presidential rhetoric has been a useful tool since metaphors are employed to represent the core of American democratic thought. The most skillful presidents are so adept at the use of metaphors that challenging them is made to appear as un-American. Furthermore, Heidt insists that an essential element of the presidential metaphor is that without requiring a good deal of cognitive activity, the metaphor offers listeners a choice between two distinct concepts. During the nineteenth century, as the United States expanded westward, the rhetoric of Manifest Destiny offered the City on the Hill metaphor embodied in the symbol of Columbia, a white-robed figure swathed in light, as evidence of America's predestined role. Ignoring that call was to remain in darkness.

The notion of the United States as the protector of world democracy was first proposed at the end of World War I by Woodrow Wilson who unsuccessfully attempted to place the United States at the helm of the League of Nations. Wilson's unwillingness to compromise and the postwar swell in isolationism stalled the treaty in the Senate, and the United States never joined the institution that Wilson had seen as the hope for future peace. The joint rhetoric of Franklin Roosevelt in the United States and Winston Churchill in Britain and the devastation caused by World War II succeeded where Wilson had failed, and the United Nations was established in 1945. Throughout the Cold War, the spread of democracy was viewed as the chief means of blocking the spread of communism.

Ronald Reagan, a former actor, became known as the Great Communicator despite the fact that he gave fewer public speeches than most other presidents. The chief element of his rhetoric was the promotion of democracy, and he saw the United States as a beacon of light in a world darkened by the threat of communism. Reagan promoted the establishment of a global institution devoted solely to spreading democracy throughout the world. His dream spawned what became a 100 billion dollar industry. In addition to creating the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the federal government began funding pro-democracy non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and for-profit firms.

Pro-democratic rhetoric continued under George H. W. Bush, but the crumbling of the Soviet Union forced Bill Clinton to shape his rhetoric to express the continued need for keeping democracy safe. The end of the Cold War witnessed a resurgence in the disease metaphor that presented tyranny as a disease, and democracy as the innate attempt of a diseased body to fight off infection. That metaphor had first been used by Richard Nixon. George W. Bush returned to the concept of America as a beacon of light after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, whereas Barack Obama affirmed the need to protect democracy. Donald Trump's "America First" rhetoric took the United States in a different direction. Trump, who sometimes expressed an affinity for totalitarian leaders and their policies, was accused of diplomatic isolationism, economic protectionism, and ceding America's role as "leader of the free world" and last standing superpower. Joe Biden attempted to reaffirm America's role as a leader of democracy and an ally to other nations in the global world during his presidency, however much of these moves were counteracted when Trump resumed the presidency.

A president's agenda is often presented through his public rhetoric, and that agenda is frequently established on the campaign trail. Campaign rhetoric that set the stage for presidential agendas included Kennedy's support of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, Reagan's determination to institute economic reform, and Bill Clinton's conviction that Americans deserved a national healthcare plan. Not all presidential rhetoric is successful in promoting agendas. Woodrow Wilson failed to win ratification of the League of Nations, Jimmy Carter was unsuccessful in generating support for healthcare reform, and George W. Bush failed to maintain lasting support for the War in Iraq. Even presidents praised for their rhetoric sometimes fail, as with Franklin Roosevelt's failure to convince Americans that the United States should provide support to the Allies in the early years of World War II. It was not until the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, that the public began to support American entry into the war.

Bibliography

Campbell, K. K., and K. H. Jamieson. (2008). Presidents creating the presidency: Deeds done in words. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cavalari, A. (2017). The party politics of presidential rhetoric. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heidt, S. J. (2013). Presidential rhetoric, metaphor, and the emergence of the democracy promotion industry. Southern Communication Journal, 78(3), 233–255.

Lim, E. T. (2008). The anti-intellectual presidency: The decline of presidential rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush.New York: Oxford University Press.

Miles, M. R. (2016). Presidential appeals to moral foundations: How modern presidents persuade cross-ideologues. Policy Studies Journal, 44(4), 471–490.

Stuckey, M. E. (2010). Rethinking the rhetorical presidency and presidential rhetoric. Review of Communication, 10(1), 38–52.

Stuckey, Mary E. (2021). "The Rhetoric of the Trump Administration." Presidential Studies Quarterly 51(1), 125-50, doi.org/10.1111/psq.12699. Accessed 5 Feb. 2025. 

Tulis, J. K. (2017). The rhetorical presidency. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.

Widmaier, W. (2015). Presidential rhetoric from Wilson to Obama: Constructing crises, fast and slow. New York: Routledge.

Young, G., and W. B. Perkins. (2005). Presidential rhetoric, the public agenda, and the end of presidential television's "golden age." Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1190–1205.