The End Of The Rhetorical Presidency

Modern presidents regularly appeal over the heads of Congress to the people at large to generate support for public policies. The Rhetorical Presidency makes the case that this development, born at the outset of the twentieth century, is the product of conscious political choices that fundamentally transformed the presidency and the meaning of American governance. Now with a new foreword by Russell Muirhead and a new afterword by the author, this landmark work probes political pathologies and analyzes the dilemmas of presidential statecraft. Extending a tradition of American political writing that begins with The Federalist and continues with Woodrow Wilson’s Congressional Government, The Rhetorical Presidency remains a pivotal work in its field.

The End of the Rhetorical Presidency? Public Leadership in the Trump Era explores one of the most disruptive aspects of the Trump presidency. Since the FDR administration, presidents developed the capacity and skill to use the public to influence the legislative arena, gain reelection, survive scandal and secure their legacy. Consequently, presidential rhetorical leadership has its own norms and expectations. Comparing President Trump’s communications apparatus as well as rhetoric (including Twitter) to previous presidents, Diane Heith demonstrates how Trump exercises leadership by adhering to some of these norms and expectations, but rejects, abandons and undermines most. Heith argues that his individual, rather than institutional, approach to leadership represents a change in tone, language and style. She concludes that the loss of skill and capacity represents a devolution of the White House institution dedicated to public leadership, especially in the legislative arena. More significantly, the individual approach emphasizes weakening the ability of the press and other political elites to hold the president accountable. This book will appeal to students and scholars of the presidency as well as general readers who quest for a deeper understanding of the Trump White House.

First published by Princeton University Press in 1987. Now with new foreword and a new afterword.

Here, the contributors suggest how embracing the art of rhetoric might have allowed Bush to respond more successfully to the challenges of his presidency. Drawing on the resources of the Bush Presidential library and interviews with some of his White House aides, they explore such issues as the first Gulf War, the fall of the Berlin wall, Bush's environmental stance, and the 1992 re-election campaign.

The End of the Rhetorical Presidency? Public Leadership in the Trump Era explores one of the most disruptive aspects of the Trump presidency. Since the FDR administration, presidents developed the capacity and skill to use the public to influence the legislative arena, gain re-election, survive scandal and secure their legacy. Consequently, presidential rhetorical leadership has its own norms and expectations. Comparing President Trump's communications apparatus as well as rhetoric (including Twitter) to previous presidents, Diane Heith demonstrates how Trump exercises leadership by adhering to some of these norms and expectations, but rejects, abandons and undermines most. Heith argues that his individual, rather than institutional, approach to leadership represents a change in tone, language and style. She concludes that the loss of skill and capacity represents a devolution of the White House institution dedicated to public leadership, especially in the legislative arena. More significantly, the individual approach emphasizes weakening the ability of the press and other political elites to hold the president accountable. This book will appeal to students and scholars of the presidency as well as general readers who quest for a deeper understanding of the Trump White House in particular.

Culminating a decade of conferences that have explored presidential speech, The Prospect of Presidential Rhetoric assesses progress and suggests directions for both the practice of presidential speech and its study. In Part One, following an analytic review of the field by Martin Medhurst, contributors address the state of the art in their own areas of expertise. Roderick P. Hart then summarizes their work in the course of his rebuttal of an argument made by political scientist George Edwards: that presidential rhetoric lacks political impact. Part Two of the volume consists of the forward-looking reports of six task forces, comprising more than forty scholars, charged with outlining the likely future course of presidential rhetoric, as well as the major questions scholars should ask about it and the tools at their disposal. The Prospect of Presidential Rhetoric will serve as a pivotal work for students and scholars of public discourse and the presidency who seek to understand the shifting landscape of American political leadership.

The bully pulpit is one of the modern president's most powerful tools—and one of the most elusive to measure. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda uses the war on drugs as a case study to explore whether and how a president's public statements affect the formation and carrying out of policy in the United States. When in June 1971 President Richard M. Nixon initiated the modern war on drugs, he did so with rhetorical flourish and force, setting in motion a federal policy that has been largely followed for more than three decades. Using qualitative and quantitative measurements, Andrew B. Whitford and Jeff Yates examine presidential proclamations about battling illicit drug use and their effect on the enforcement of anti-drug laws at the national, state, and local level. They analyze specific pronouncements and the social and political contexts in which they are made; examine the relationship between presidential leadership in the war on drugs and the policy agenda of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Attorneys; and assess how closely a president's drug policy is implemented in local jurisdictions. In evaluating the data, this sophisticated study of presidential leadership shows clearly that with careful consideration of issues and pronouncements a president can effectively harness the bully pulpit to drive policy.

Describes the constitutional principles behind the Presidency, looks at how modern presidents have generated public support for their programs, and discusses the problems this approach creates

Winner, Bronze, 2020 Foreword Indies, Political and Social Sciences Winner, 2021 PROSE Award for Government & Politics "Deserves a place alongside George Orwell’s 'Politics and the English Language'. . . . one of the most important political books of this perilous summer."—The Washington Post "A must-read"—Salon "Highly recommended"—Jack Shafer, Politico Featured in "The Best New Books to Read This Summer" and "Lit Hub's Most Anticipated Books of 2020"—Literary Hub Historic levels of polarization, a disaffected and frustrated electorate, and widespread distrust of government, the news media, and traditional political leadership set the stage in 2016 for an unexpected, unlikely, and unprecedented presidential contest. Donald Trump’s campaign speeches and other rhetoric seemed on the surface to be simplistic, repetitive, and disorganized to many. As Demagogue for President shows, Trump’s campaign strategy was anything but simple. Political communication expert Jennifer Mercieca shows how the Trump campaign expertly used the common rhetorical techniques of a demagogue, a word with two contradictory definitions—“a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power” or “a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). These strategies, in conjunction with post-rhetorical public relations techniques, were meant to appeal to a segment of an already distrustful electorate. It was an effective tactic. Mercieca analyzes rhetorical strategies such as argument ad hominem, argument ad baculum, argument ad populum, reification, paralipsis, and more to reveal a campaign that was morally repugnant to some but to others a brilliant appeal to American exceptionalism. By all accounts, it fundamentally changed the discourse of the American public sphere.