Forum on the 2016 Presidential Primary: Rhetoric, Identity, and Presidentiality in the Post-Obama Era

Shortly after Barack Obama was elected as U.S. president, political pundits began to speculate about the impact his political success might have on U.S. presidentiality. Would the election of someone other than a heterosexual white male as U.S. president open up space for other non-normative presidential identities? Was this the first domino to fall in a chain reaction that would usher in a post-racial, postfeminist, postpartisan era?¹ Rhetorical critics regarded these labels with appropriate skepticism, and the election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president in 2016 served as a vigorous rebuke to the more hopeful speculations.² The question remains, however, as to how (if at all) rhetorics of presidentiality have changed in the post-Obama era. This forum examines discourses of presidentiality that emerged during the 2016 presidential primary, a contest awash in surprises and contradictions: as voters of color demonstrated their power at the polls, discourses of white supremacy surged to the fore; the history-making campaign that produced a female presidential nominee in the Democratic Party was matched by the ascension of a serial misogynist in the Republican Party; political outsiders proved popular in an election that was supposed to be dominated by political dynasties; and satirists who gained authority as political commentators sometimes chose strategic silence as their mode of critique.

In this forum, scholars reflect on rhetoric, identity, and change as manifested in the 2016 presidential primary. Robert E. Terrill begins this discussion by examining discourses of race and citizenship proffered by presidential hopefuls. Terrill reveals the ways in which the rhetoric of presidential prospects from both major political parties was shaped either by an obligation to address race or an obviation of that responsibility. In particular, he contends that in its refusal to acknowledge the racial obligation implicit in U.S. citizenship, Trump’s campaign rhetoric produced a version of post-racialism that was devoid of civic ethics. Terrill reminds us that “racial obligation is a fundamental component of ethical public speech in contemporary U.S. civic culture.”

J. David Cisneros also assesses rhetorics of race and citizenship, focusing his analysis on the primary season’s “especially potent and varied sampling of political discourses about Latinx communities and Latinx identities.” Contributing to the increasingly diverse literature on rhetorics of “presidentiality,” Cisneros posits a theory of “racial presidentialities,” which he defines as “political and cultural discourses that use the presidency and/or particular presidents or presidential candidates to construct broader meanings about racial politics and the role of race in U.S. national identity.” Cisneros identifies two seemingly oppositional narratives that cast Latinxs as both a valuable voting constituency and a civic threat. By examining the ways in which those discourses are undergirded by “similar logics that homogenize and essentialize Latinxs,” Cisneros contends that presidentiality in the post-Obama era continues to reflect norms of presidential whiteness.

My contribution to the forum similarly examines norms of presidentiality, arguing that even though Hillary Clinton made history when she captured the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, the journalistic narratives that framed her primary bid underscored the resilience of gender double binds in U.S. political culture. In particular, I argue that when examined in tandem, her 2008 and 2016 candidacies revealed a new double bind endemic to U.S. presidentiality: the first-timer/frontrunner double bind—a Catch-22 that requires women presidential candidates to amass significant political experience, party support, and campaign funds, and then frames those who do as entitled, antidemocratic, and motivated by a manic desire for power. In her two bids to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton was cast as presidential pioneer and campaign queen. Analysis of these narratives reveals rather than repudiates the continued salience of sexism in U.S. presidential politics.

Hillary Clinton’s status as woman made her 2016 campaign historic; her identity as half of a powerful contemporary political dynasty gave some voters pause. Mary E. Stuckey takes up the topic of dynasties and democracy, reflecting on the fear of political dynasties woven into our...