Presidents and the People: The Partisan Story of Going Public (review)

Mel Laracey's book advances a thought-provoking set of claims for scholars of the presidency. Contrary to Jeffrey Tulis's version of the rhetorical presidency, presidential communication prior to the twentieth century was constrained not by either constitutional proscription or normative rules of political decorum, but by partisan political philosophy. Moreover, the difference between nineteenth- and twentieth-century presidential communication lies primarily in form rather than function. "Going public," therefore, is and always has been a viable option for presidents to influence policymaking. Laracey's argument is grounded on the inclusion of presidential newspapers as a rhetorical conduit from the president to the people, a communicative connection for the rhetorical presidency neglected or overlooked by earlier scholarship.

The strength of Laracey's book is in his careful accounting of the newspapers of the day and their varied associations with the presidency. He documents the origins of the presidential newspapers, their direct and indirect editorial and financial connections to presidents, and the ways in which presidents strove to manipulate presses across the country. Laracey's descriptions of each president's press relations (or lack thereof) from Washington to McKinley add a stimulating dimension to the nineteenth-century rhetorical presidency, and one well worth further investigation. Laracey posits a new typology for pre-twentieth century presidents, with four communicative models: the "Mobilizer," the "Celebrator," the "Deliberator," and the "Reserved" rhetorical presidencies (6). The typology nicely illustrates Laracey's argument for a more multidimensional view of the early rhetorical presidency, although the presidents tend not to fit into it so neatly. Stronger support for Laracey's claim is generated by his in-depth discussion of the newspapers used by presidents prior to 1900.

The many strategies of presidential press communication are detailed for each administration: whether the president had his advisors write political editorials favoring his policies or wrote for himself, used a pseudonym, dictated editorial policies or editors, demolished the opposition paper, or diverted printing jobs to support favorable presses is all documented with substantial energy in a highly readable fashion. Laracey presents a solid case for the consideration of newspapers as an important aspect of the nineteenth-century rhetorical presidency. Laracey also builds a case for a partisan explanation of changes in presidential communication styles and strategies. He argues that the initial differences between Federalist and Anti-Federalist political philosophies contributed significantly to the communicative choices of later presidents. The Democratic Republicans and Democrats pursued an active public communication policy, while Whigs and Republicans demonstrated much more restraint. There are exceptions, of course, but Laracey adeptly explains the philosophical underpinnings of each position and challenges earlier interpretations of evidence to effectively bolster his claims. The added nuance of partisan effects on the rhetorical presidency and "going public" offered in this section is perhaps the most intriguing part of the book.

Despite being a creditable contribution to presidential scholarship, this amplified view of the rhetorical presidency is not the only goal of Laracey's study. Rather, what Laracey seeks to achieve is a fundamental reconception of the rhetorical presidency, not as a twentieth-century phenomenon grown well beyond the Founders' views, but as a "legitimate mass mobilization tool" and "logical product" of a presidency deeply involved in the policymaking process from its inception (9). Had Laracey been content with the first achievement, his treatment of presidential newspapers and partisan politics alone makes a solid contribution to scholarship in the relevant fields of interest. However, the larger claim is more contentious and less convincingly argued and evidenced here, exacerbated by the sharpness of Laracey's attacks on earlier rhetorical presidency scholarship. While the newspapers of the nineteenth century certainly contained a wealth of communication about political issues of the day, often generated or influenced by the president, the distinction between public, oral speech, and written statements is glossed over a bit too easily...