Speaking to the People: The Rhetorical Presidency in Historical Perspective (review)

114 Rhetoric & Public Affairs Speaking to the People: The Rhetorical Presidency in Historical Perspective. Edited by Richard J. EUis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998; pp. 283 + viii. $17.95 paper. The narrative is a famUiar one to students of the presidency. The founders of the nation were determined to protect the president from the vagaries of public passions . Implicit cultural norms combined with explicit constitutional provisions to achieve that end. Nineteenth-century presidents, with rare exceptions, seldom addressed the public directly. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, responding to social, economic, and political changes, transformed the office and introduced the practices that have come to be known as the rhetorical presidency. Since their two administrations, each president constructs himself, for good or ill, as the one true voice of the nation. In Speaking to the People: The Rhetorical Presidency in Historical Perspective, Richard EUis and his coUeagues accept the essential truth of this famUiar tale, but they compUcate the narrative in intriguing ways. In particular, these scholars argue that we should understand the transformation of the presidency not as a revolution, but as an evolution. The eight substantive essays are arranged chronologicaUy, beginning with the founders' thought and ending with Frankhn Roosevelt. Richard EUis introduces the essays and Jeffrey Tulis concludes the coUection with some thoughts on the historicization of the rhetorical presidency. In effect, the book urges scholars to broaden their idea of rhetoric beyond direct public address; by doing so, one can see more clearly the persuasive strategies of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century presidents. The first three essays concern the early republic. David Nichols explores the debates at the constitutional convention and argues that those discourses, as weU as the Constitution itself, served as a "seedbed" for a "popular presidency" (27). Richard J. EUis and Stephen Kirk turn to the concept of a presidential mandate, a notion critical to presidents' claims for popular support, and trace the idea to the Jefferson and Jackson administrations. Mel Laracey focuses on the life and death of presidential newspapers. WhUe each is exceUent, Laracey's work demonstrates clearly the sort of rhetorical action undertaken by presidents of the early republic. Laracey acknowledges that early presidents did not make the sort of speeches associated with the rhetorical presidency. He urges us, however, to dispense with a narrow definition of "going public" and to consider the ways in which presidents engaged in public address through the pages of their newspapers. His essay thoroughly explicates the history of such newspapers, explains their prominent role from around 1800 through the mid-1850s, and then considers their demise. Near the end of the piece, he moves to the nineteenth century version of "spin control," exploring Abraham Lincoln's public letters and his private communications with editors. At each stage, Laracey establishes the control presidents exerted over their newspapers, a fact particularly evident, as one might expect, in the case of Andrew Book Reviews 115 Jackson. In short, Laracey exemplifies the argument that emerges from the book. He acknowledges the truth of the old tale, but complicates the narrative by pointing to the rhetorical action available even to "non-rhetorical" presidents. The next two essays focus on the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Gerald Gamm and Renee M. Smith examine the interactions among presidents, parties , and the public. They conclude that institutional changes, particularly the slow decline of political parties, had much more to do with the creation of the rhetorical presidency than did the theories of Woodrow Wüson. In fact, they argue that the changes culminated in the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt; he was the first rhetorical president. The essay is interesting, but its point is limited. Whether Roosevelt or WUson originated the rhetorical presidency does not matter nearly as much as the fact that it happened. The essay could have been stronger had the authors foUowed up on the issue of political parties and suggested ways to get at the ongoing interaction between presidents and parties if parties are, indeed, the key to understanding the rhetorical presidency. Richard J. EUis turns to the evolution of the nomination acceptance address. Like Laracey, he argues that presidents (and potential presidents) found ways to stretch the...