The Rhetorical Presidency Issues - Essay Example

The Rhetorical Presidency Introduction Popular rhetoric has become one of the principle tools used by presidents in their attempts to effectively govern the nation. It is not uncommon for presidents nowadays to hide their imperfections with programmatic speeches that put forward grand and ennobling views aimed at exhorting the public. According to The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency by Ceaser, Thurow, Tulis and Bessette, the genesis of this form of governance was President Carter in the 1979 when his leadership was facing a lot of criticism from all corners of the world. President Carter engaged in a rhetorical campaign by working on the national consciousness and before long the dissatisfaction with his leadership was forgotten. He managed not only to rescue his presidency but also instill national moral revival which had been diminishing. Now it has become a common phenomenon in contemporary leadership. The Genesis of Rhetoric Presidency Throughout the 19th Century, rhetoric presidency was received with a lot of suspicion and presidents rarely attempted to directly communicate to the people. Even the few speeches delivered by presidents were totally different from the ones delivered today. They were mostly concerned with constitutional matters, patriotism or conduct of war as opposed to today’s domestic policy speeches aimed at moving the nations’ conscience. In the modern times however, presidents have come to believe that they are not effective presidents if they cannot be able to exhort the public. It is now common for presidents to make press conferences, radio or TV coverage speeches, news releases or congressional address every so often. These speeches have a common tone to them, i.e. “Speaking is governing,” (Ceaser, 159), and are aimed at exhibiting the public’s reaction as if to a real situation. For example, President Kennedy was continually caught talking of a national crisis and how people need to sacrifice and commit themselves to the nation, but when enquired, he couldn’t tell which crisis exactly he was talking about. President Johnson speeches’ too contained messages of hope to the public on ballooned up expectations on what his government could achieve only to be found that his messages exceeded what his government could realistically achieve. President Nixon was aware of the public’s reaction to a lot of rhetoric and came up with his own anti-rhetoric promising to stop it, but the president could not even control himself from ‘shouting back’ at his detractors. And of course there was President Carter who at first was all calm promising to bring sanity back to government but by the mid of his term his speeches were all full of rhetorical forcefulness talking of the decline and revitalization of the country. But what are the implications of these rhetoric speeches that almost all the contemporary presidents find themselves caught into? The Rhetoric Presidency: ‘Pulpit Bully’ or Mere Baloney? Many people term these speeches as mere rhetoric and they know that it’s all talk. But despite the knowledge of this fact, the excess speeches have continued to inflate people’s expectations to the detriment of these leaders. This has developed into an institutional dilemma for all the modern governments. These presidents are expected to match their actions with the ideals they created in the public’s mind through their rhetoric speeches. In the end, it is their government that is weakened by this kind of leadership since it is hard to measure up to the peoples’ puffed up expectations. With failure comes criticism and cynicism from the same people they sought to impress. When George Bush was asked about his most disappointing experience in leadership, he admitted that he was not a good communicator. Clinton too wished he had done a good job in communicating to the public according to what he could achieve, (Edwards, 20). So is the president’s office exactly a ‘bully pulpit’ as Roosevelt described it? Most modern presidents can confess that the public is often unresponsive to many of the issues that they raise or some of the requests made from the White House. So should we still believe it when journalists claim that the White House is capable of manipulating or even mobilizing the public if the president is equipped with enough skills to speak? May be we should analyze the leadership of two presidents in order to answer this question; President Reagan and President Clinton. For President Reagan he was able to move the public in matters of public security in regard to attack by the Soviet Union, public morals and taking pride in the country. But this did not last long. He was frustrated when the public could no longer buy his arguments of national security, military spending, military aid or cooperation with Soviet Union. The public supported spending on welfare, health care, urban problems, education and environment much to the poor president’s dismay. And instead of supporting his conservative views when he took office, the public diverted the other way instead. In the end, it was obvious that Reagan was unable to move or mobilize the public through his efforts. As for Clinton, when he first introduced his major economic plan he was met with a strong Republican opposition. During the 1993 Congressional recess, he attempted working on the Republicans conscience through his rhetoric to get to support the bill. But his efforts did not materialize and the Republicans did not change much in their opinion on the new spending for the nation and their constituents rallied against the proposed new taxes and spending and so the bill never gained approval by the senate. The president’s next move was on the 1993 budget bill when he sought support through the national television while the Republican leader spoke against it. A CNN poll following his speech found that the support for the bill had dropped instead of rising. He also went public when the 1994 crime bill was voted out but still the Republicans won the public over and the President had to cut private deals. The last blow came when he was unable to sustain public support for health care reform bill. The White House even tried to hold a compromise with the Republicans so as to push for a common ground, but even that was not forthcoming. Most of the public still opposed the bill. It is not always that presidents fail in their attempts gain public support. Sometimes, the White House is successful in its efforts to move the public and to garner support for the President’s policies and ideologies from the congress. If a president can be able to move the public it has a weapon available to it that it can use to influence the Congress because Congress will almost always listen when the public speak, (Ceaser et al, 164). For example, Ronald Reagan used this tool to help in passing the 1981 bill to cut taxes. He had made a detailed speech to the public shortly before he presented the bill to the Congress, appealing to them to support the bill and let their representatives know exactly how they feel about the same. Obviously, this worked because the congressional offices received massive phone calls, telegrams and letters from the public during the next couple of days. And when the bill was passed by the Congress, President Reagan did not hesitate to utilize his newly discovered weapon whenever he needed support for any of his subsequent policies, (Edwards, 20). So What Makes It So Difficult to Lead the Public? For any president to be able to influence the public, he must first obtain public attention which most a times proves to be challenging. This is because obtaining an audience for the president is difficult in itself especially if the president is infamous or generally disinteresting. Further, maintaining the public’s attention is even more difficult. It requires one to limit that attention to a few central issues and whether or not he is successful in this depends on how much this issues claim the president’s attention from his daily priority agendas. For example, in 1994, even though health care reforms were top priority issues for the White House, it had to divert its attention to the white water hearings then to the large influx of Cuban refugees. And when the White House attempted to put off the welfare agenda in favor of the health care reform, senate threatened to hold hostage the health care reform proposals until the White House focused on the welfare reform first, (Edwards, 20). Regardless of how well the presidents may speak, they must deal with the issue of public receptivity. But for most people, they are only interested with visual action and presidential speeches rarely contain this. The presidential staff also puts little awareness to presidential address and the public receives it with as much importance. Further, most of the public is disinterested with politics and this can be frustrating because it makes it hard for the president to pass a message across. Because of this, the public will miss or misconceive even the basics of a president’s policies. It is even more difficult to sway the Americans not only because of their indifference but also due to their predispositions. Most of them hold group or family rather than individual views and values making it so hard for politicians to penetrate them. They will not agree to open their way of conceiving things except when something big occurs. And for the same reasons, even though they will be attracted to strong leaders, there is no evidence of them feeling a corresponding obligation to believe in their leadership, (Ceaser et al, 169). Another drawback is in the way these presidents present themselves to the public. Some of them are not effective speakers while others have to get help with their physical outlook. Most of them need to master the art of talking to the cameras. Presidents must ensure their messages are able to awaken the masses and must be consistent in portraying the president as a national leader. The president must be seen to know exactly what he wants and his ability to solve problems as they come. Conclusion It is definitely important for a president to be a good speaker. But speaking alone will not take his leadership far. Getting the public’s support is not an end but the beginning. When a president enters office, he needs to differentiate between campaigning and action time. A President should learn the art of speaking to the public so that in the end he does not get frustrated by his very own words. References Ceaser, W., Thurow, E., Tulis, Jeffrey & Bessette M. “The Rise of the Rhetoric Presidency”: Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 2, Presidential Power and Democratic Constraints: A Prospective and Retrospective Analysis (1981), pp. 158-171. Blackwell Publishing Edwards, C. “New Challenges for the American Presidency: The Presidential Pulpit: Bully or Baloney”: Longman, 2004. Read More