The evolution of the rhetorical presidency and getting past the traditional/modern divide.

Teten, Ryan Lee

Almost six years ago, as a graduate student at Vanderbilt University, I was first introduced to a division that exists in the classification of presidential rhetoric and, indeed, of presidents themselves. The "modern" rhetorical presidency, a term largely coined by James Ceasar, Glen Thurow, Jeffrey Tulis, and Joseph Bessette in their article "The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency" (1981) and more fully developed by Tulis in his book The Rhetorical Presidency (1987), has come to dominate presidential study, as well as the rhetoric of presidential scholarship itself. Indeed, because the modern presidency is presented in these works as the true origin of the rhetoric and the power of the contemporary presidency that we observe today, this demarcation is often used as a jumping-off point for much of the research in the field (Campbell 1996; Greenstein, Berman, and Felzenberg 1977; Landy 1985; Liebovich 2001; McConnell 1967; Medhurst 1996a, 1996b; Pfiffner 2000; Polsby 1973; Rozell and Pederson 1997; Shaw 1987; Stuckey 1997). Additionally, if studies do not begin their analysis with a modern president, then they most likely busy themselves with attempting to determine the exact point of the origination of the modern (Gamm and Smith 1998; Greenstein 1978, 1982, 1988, 2000, 2006; Greenstein, Berman, and Felzenberg 1977; Kernell 1997; Milkis 1998; Smith and Smith 1990; Tulis 1987, 1996, 1998).

While initially excavating the subject matter, the questions that seemed to emerge from many works studying the presidency were: Where does the modern rhetorical presidency truly begin? And who can be seen as the originator of the style of political activity and presidential rhetorical prowess that we see today? There was also (and still is) a debate over whether the modern presidency began with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or even Teddy Roosevelt. Looking to provide more insight into the subject, I dove headfirst into the fray and used a sampling of 50 State of the Union addresses to make observations on the conflict.

In my 2003 article, some of my findings, which are questioned and largely misinterpreted by Chad Murphy in his critical analysis, posited that there might be "three observable eras in the evolution of the state of the union address" and that "the modern [period] begins with Woodrow Wilson and continues to the present day" (343). However, the main thrust of the article, and a conclusion almost completely ignored in Murphy's analysis, was that "although format changes and rhetorical changes have occurred in presidential rhetoric, the traditional/modern paradigm, seemingly so widely accepted, may warrant revision and re-evaluation" (343).

In addition, I found that "because of the many variables at play within consideration of presidential rhetoric, it is nearly impossible to say with confidence that the observed changes are the result of single individuals" (343). In this essay, one of my primary purposes is to respond to the queries raised by Murphy. However, the bigger question that needs to be examined in the realm of presidential scholarship is, yet again, the propriety of the traditional/modern dichotomy. I believe that the use of this paradigm is not only a hindrance to fully understanding the development of presidential power and rhetoric, it is a misnomer that is utilized for simplicity's sake at the cost of extensive and extremely insightful research.

The Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: A Critical Response

In his essay, Murphy does an excellent job of taking the much-needed next step for an examination of presidential rhetoric and the State of the Union address. In order to produce a clearer picture of the development of the State of the Union address and the changes that have taken place therein, he includes all of the annual messages in his study. He asserts, "Consequently, I am able to more clearly identify the periods of presidential rhetoric and locate the durable shift in contemporary presidential speech making." This is, very practically, the most important step that can be taken to supplement the addresses that were included in my study in 2003.

Once he compiles the data and presents his findings, Murphy comes to the conclusion that "[m]y analysis suggests that Wilson was more of a transitional figure, a president with rhetorical features before his time. Permanent changes in the State of the Union address occurred later during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration," He also explains that "[a]lthough Teten and others assert that the modern rhetorical presidency began during the Wilson administration, a systematic analysis of all State of the Union addresses does not support this, It seems more likely that the new era began during Franklin Roosevelt's administration."

In his first figure, Murphy examines the use of the terms we and our in the State of the Union address. In addition, he suggests that "the general pattern in the comparable addresses is the same" as that presented in my 2003 article. He "confirm[s] the dramatic increase in Wilson's use of group words in his second address." However, he claims that, when aggregated with the entirety of the State of the Union addresses by president (as shown in his Figure 3), the spike for Wilson is much smaller than previously shown. This finding is beyond denial, and Murphy does well to present the averages for all of the presidents. He also finds that FDR, when aggregated, has a higher level of use of "popular address words" (Teten 2007) than does Wilson. He reads this to mean that "[i]t seems more likely that the new [modern] era began during Franklin Roosevelt's administration."

He supplements the examination of the terms we and our by separating the presidents into two separate eras: a traditional era ending before Wilson and a modern era beginning after FDR. In addition to these data, he also marks the means for Wilson and FDR on the figure. On the basis of the finding in this figure and in Figure 3 that Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover did not follow the levels of Wilson's use of we and our and that a "larger spike occurred during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, and subsequent presidents maintained group-word usage at comparable or higher levels," Murphy claims that this is significant proof that the FDR presidency was responsible for the modern rhetorical presidency and that times "forced Franklin Roosevelt to change the way he crafted his annual addresses, and those who were elected after not only continued his traditions but generally expanded on them."

There are several major weaknesses to the argument that is made by Murphy. The main problem with the findings presented in the first and third figures is the fact that, although his findings sample the entire population of State of the Union addresses, they do not differ significantly from the data presented in my article in 2003. In addition, even though Murphy produces similar data, he reaches an alternative conclusion as to the founding of the modern rhetorical presidency. By looking at the same basic pattern that evolves in the first figure, it seems unlikely that it can be claimed substantively that there are conclusively differentiating results.

In addition, the new data that he presents in the aggregated data format (Figure 3) and in the histogram (Figure 2) seem to reinforce instead of detract from the importance played by Wilson in the evolution of contemporary presidential rhetoric. In his conclusions and diagnosis of Figure 3, he suggests that "[a] useful way to judge which interpretation is more sound is to consider whether Wilson's immediate successors followed his example or whether they returned to the previous pattern." Further, on the basis that although "Wilson may have given oral addresses, he certainly did not pioneer a trend that lasted for any period of time, neither in delivery nor in rhetorical style," Murphy claims that FDR most obviously contributed more to the cause of the modern rhetorical presidency because of the continuation by subsequent presidents of higher levels of rhetoric.

The problem therein is that Murphy acknowledges that Wilson pioneered not only the oral delivery of the State of the Union address but also increased levels of "popular address rhetoric" utilized in the speeches. He also recognizes that "Coolidge and Hoover both drastically decreased their group-word usage following Wilson" and that "Coolidge and Hoover

abandoned the practice of delivering the message directly to Congress and returned to the written form." If, then, Wilson fundamentally changed the way in which the speech was formatted and delivered, in a way that FDR and almost every other twentieth- and twenty-first-century president has seized on, is this not the very definition of altering the prior rhetorical bounds and expanding them for future presidents? Surely we cannot suggest that just because of the proclivities of Coolidge and Hoover, the rhetorical contributions of Wilson, which were utilized and escalated by FDR, played little role in the development of the rhetorical presidency.

Another problem arises in his illustration of the different categorizations of the modern and traditional period (Figure 2), and where Wilson and FDR lie on that scale. On the basis of this display, he finds that "Wilson is in the top 5 percent of the traditional time period and the bottom 5 percent of the modern presidency" and that "[t]his is more inconclusive evidence regarding the placement of Wilson. His word usage seems to place him somewhere between the two eras." The problem with this assertion, again, lies in the very definition of what he is seeking.

In discovering the origins of a modern rhetorical presidency, scholars look for an individual who significantly altered the way things had been done and, in doing so, set a benchmark for behavior and actions that were followed and expanded on by presidents in the future. According to Murphy's data, Wilson, more than FDR or maybe any other president, appears perfectly at the juncture of the old and the new. His oratorical style and rhetorical changes place him at the seeming top of one category (usage during the traditional) and at the bottom of the new category (usage during the modern). Wilson, then, appears in much the same way that Henry Ford might be seen; Ford utilized incredible automotive dynamics unrealized before his time (maybe the top 5 percent of the old way of doing things), but his innovations must also be recognized as falling nowhere near the technological advancement and production of today's industry (maybe the bottom 5 percent of the new way of doing things). Does this really mean that both Wilson and Ford did not add something significant to the way things were done?

To Alter a Paradigm

The main problems that arise with Murphy's essay are endemic to presidential scholarship and the study of presidential rhetoric in general. Scholars inherently look to categorize everything from presidential greatness and administrative activity to public support and legislative opposition. The difficulties that are faced in these queries are numerous and significant. The presidency produces a fairly small sample of individuals to examine at best. The presidency suffers from a lack of historical preservation of documents from the eighteenth, nineteenth, and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. The presidency has faced such extraordinarily varying contexts regarding the country, the media, the people, technology, international affairs, and domestic affairs that it makes any kind of comparison across time extremely difficult at best.

The dangerous temptation when faced with these problems is to do what Tulis (1987) did and what Murphy is attempting to do. The creation of an artificial dichotomy that separates presidential history into sections without adequate justification unfortunately provides other scholars with a seemingly permissible reason why a huge subset of presidents and presidential history can be dismissed in their studies. If the modern presidency is the only era that provides any kind of insight into the contemporary president and his words and actions, why would there even be a need to look to the presidents of the 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s for their contributions or innovations?

The disclaimer at the conclusion of my 2003 article, which was not engaged with the Murphy piece, was that, although the initial findings of my research suggested three possible eras of presidential speech and behavior, the variation among presidents and their ways of speaking made any generalizations based on the data difficult and dangerous at best. Instead of looking for an individual who could be held solely responsible for the origins of modern presidential behavior, scholars should instead look on each president as altering, improving, or adding to the powers and rhetorical prowess of the presidency in some form or another. Many scholars have begun to take a similar approach in their examinations of the presidential past (Beasley 2004; Dorsey 2002; Genovese 2001; Laracey 2002; Lucas 2002; Nichols 1994; Zarefsky 2002). Even Murphy seems to hint at this throughout his essay, stating that "[w]ith the fluctuations in the graph of all States of the Union, it is difficult to say exactly which of these two explanations is more valid" and that "certainly, further research regarding the advent of the modern rhetorical presidency is warranted."

The truth is that my continuing study and the inclusion of many different forms of presidential address and rhetoric in the analysis suggest that the modern/traditional divide is overly simplistic and can be severely detrimental to the study and close examination of many of the presidents of the past and the changes and customizations that each one added to result in today's contemporary president. Instead of a black-and-white presidential history that dismisses some presidents because of their assumed lack of utility, scholars should reach into the presidential past of all officeholders for insight into the ways that problems were handled and issues addressed.

Presidential history and the development of the rhetorical presidency, then, is much less the result of an individual never-before-seen transformation (although some presidents added more than others) and is, instead, the culmination of the governance of 43 different individuals and the ways in which they molded and crafted the office toward their own designs. When the next president is inaugurated in January 2009, he or she will not find only the rhetorical innovations and legislative weapons of the presidents since FDR or Wilson at their disposal. Instead, the next president will be able to survey all of presidential history to glean inspiration and historical behavioral lessons from Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Grant, Arthur, Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush alike. Each of their predecessors dealt with contexts and confrontations that were unique in form and function from almost any of those faced by another president. We, as scholars, should follow this lead and explore the nuances and proclivities of every president for our study. We should not limit ourselves to an artificial classification that may be easier to deal with, but that will cost us the deeper understanding and enlightenment of this institution that we seek.

References

Beasley, Vanessa B. 2004. You, the people: American national identity in presidential rhetoric. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. 1996. The rhetorical presidency: A two-person career. In Beyond the rhetorical presidency, edited by Martin J. Medhurst, 179-95. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Ceasar, James W., Glen E. Thurow, Jeffrey K. Tulis, and Joseph M. Bessette. 1981. The rise of the rhetorical presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly 11: 158-71.

Dorsey, Leroy G. 2002. Introduction: The president as a rhetorical leader. In The presidency and rhetorical leadership, edited by Leroy G. Dorsey, 3-19. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Gamm, Gerald, and Renee M. Smith. 1998. Presidents, parties, and the public: Evolving patterns of interaction, 1877-1929. In Speaking to the people: The rhetorical presidency in historical perspective, edited by Richard J. Ellis, 87-110. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Genovese, Michael A. 2001. The power of the American presidency, 1789-2000. New York: Oxford University Press.

Greenstein, Fred I. 1978. Change and continuity in the modern presidency. In The new American political system, edited by Anthony King, 45-86. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute

--. 1982. The hidden-hand presidency: Eisenhower as leader. New York: Basic Books.

--. 1988. Leadership in the modern presidency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

--. 2000. The presidential difference: leadership style from FDR to Clinton. New York: Martin Kessler.

--. 2006. Presidential difference in the early republic: The highly disparate leadership styles of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Presidential Studies Quarterly 36: 373-88.

Greenstein, Fred I., Larry Berman, and Alvin S. Felzenberg. 1977. Evolution of the modern presidency: A bibliographical survey. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Kernell, Samuel. 1997. Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Landy, Marc, ed. 1985. Modern presidents and the presidency. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Laracey, Mel. 2002. Presidents and the people: The partisan story of going public. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Liebovich, Louis W. 2001. The press and the modern presidency: Myths and mindsets from Kennedy to Election 2000. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lucas, Stephen E. 2002. George Washington and the rhetoric of presidential leadership In The presidency and rhetorical leadership, edited by Leroy G. Dorsey, 42-72. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

McConnell, Grant. 1967. The modern presidency. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Medhurst, Martin J. 1996a. A tale of two constructs: The rhetorical presidency versus presidential rhetoric. In Beyond the rhetorical presidency, edited by Martin J. Medhurst, ix-xxv. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

--. 1996b. Afterword: The ways of rhetoric. In Beyond the rhetorical presidency, edited by Martin J. Medhurst, 218-26. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Milkis, Sidney M. 1998. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Progressivism and the limits of popular leadership In Speaking to the people: The rhetorical presidency in historical perspective, edited by Richard J. Ellis, 182-210. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Nichols, David K. 1994. The myth of the modern presidency. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Pfiffner, James P. 2000. The modern presidency, 3rd ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins.

Polsby, Nelson W., ed. 1973. The modern presidency. New York: Random House.

Rozell, Mark J., and William D. Pederson, eds. 1997. FDR and the modern presidency: Leadership and legacy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Shaw, Malcolm, ed. 1987. The modern presidency: From Roosevelt to Reagan. New York: Harper & Row.

Smith, Craig Allen, and Kathy B. Smith. 1990. The rhetoric of political institutions. In New directions in political communication: A resource book, edited by David L. Swanson and Dan Nimmo, 225-54. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stuckey, Mary E. 1997. Strategic failures in the modern presidency. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Teten, Ryan Lee. 2007. "We the people": The "modern" rhetorical popular address of the presidents during the founding period. Political Research Quarterly 60: 669-82.

Tulis, Jeffrey K. 1987. The rhetorical presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

--. 1996. Revising the rhetorical presidency. In Beyond the rhetorical presidency, edited by Martin J. Medhurst, 3-14. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

--. 1998. Reflections on the rhetorical presidency in American political development. In Speaking to the people: The rhetorical presidency in historical perspective, edited by Richard J. Ellis, 211-22. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press

Zarefsky, David. 2002. The presidency has always been a place for rhetorical leadership. In The presidency and rhetorical leadership, edited by Leroy Dorsey, 20-41. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

RYAN LEE TETEN

Northern Kentucky University

Ryan Lee Teten is an assistant professor of political science at Northern Kentucky University. He has published articles in Political Psychology and Political Research Quarterly.