Search

Whenever a sitting president presides over an international conflict, whether a war or police action, they must provide the people with an accounting of the engagement as well as garner support for ongoing operations. The United States has seen many different foreign entanglements, from the French and Indian War to the War on Terror. Times have changed and technology has advanced. However, something that has not changed is the need for the president to suggest that the military engagement is in the best interest of the country and the people. This paper examines the ways that the executives of the past have used the State of the Union Address to discuss the issue of war and elicit support from the public at-large. What is surprising, however, is not that they use this public forum to address the important issue. The surprise is the incredible similarity between the wartime presidents regarding the type of rhetoric that is used in these communications. Although we might suggest that contemporary presidents would use "modern" language and rhetorical stylings that would be markedly different from those presidents of the 18th and 19th centuries, observation and analysis of State of the Union Addresses suggests that, when faced with military conflict, presidents of varying eons tend to espouse incredibly similar verbiage. This study not only provides important commentary on presidential wartime rhetoric, but also brings questions regarding a "modern" versus a "traditional" rhetorical presidency to light. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Let's face it. The return of students to campus in the fall always brings about the same apprehensions. We have to prepare for the upper level political science classes. What papers should be assigned? What books should be used? What kind of standards should be pushed? Unfortunately, too often the preparation for the higher level classes means that many of us turn to an old reliable intro level text (or at least the newest edition of the same book). The problem always arises year after year however: How do we get the students to engage and digest the text, and not just open the book for the first time the day before the exam? I think that a solution is to use non-traditional methodology to reach and teach those students who are often written off as politics averse. By utilizing John Stewart's America: The Book as a primary text for intro classes, I believe that we are better able to introduce students to complex topics of political science as well as retain their attention and engagement levels throughout the semester. This paper examines the changes that have taken place since the transition from standard political science textbook to non-traditional source. It also suggests other ways that we might be able to reach students without sacrificing rigor and information. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to many scholars of the presidency, the initiative to speak to, as one of, and for the people of the United States is a 20th century development. "Popular address" and "popular rhetoric" as they have been coined, are used by the president in his addresses to appeal to Congress and the people. According to the tenets of the "traditional/modern paradigm, those presidents of the "traditional" presidency were, by the reverence of their position or the limited powers directly granted in the Constitution, prevented from utilizing popular rhetoric in their addresses that would attempt to move or speak to the greater populous of the country. However, as seen in this study, this type of public-address rhetoric was not necessarily foreign to even those who predate the official formation of government in the United States. The focus of this paper is to examine the usage of public address rhetoric within the State of the Union Addresses in order to identify trends and determine whether presidents since the founding of the United States have used popular appeal and rhetoric in their address, or whether the introduction of going public is indeed a "modern" development that was little used in the rhetorical past of the presidency. Specifically, I look at instances in which the president attempts to address his audience as one of them, attempts to use his presidential position as justification for his arguments, and those instances in which the president actually makes a command or request in his State of the Union Address. Although rhetoric by its very nature is diverse, I will classify, and focus on, three types of popular address rhetoric in general and note their occurrences within the State of the Union Addresses. These are: identification rhetoric, authority rhetoric, and directive rhetoric. The labels given to the types of rhetoric are for parsimony more than anything else, but accurately reflect the type of rhetoric that is examined under the given label. Each label effectively measures a different attempt of the president to speak as one of the people, to the people, in reference to the people, or as the president using different pronouns. "Politicians make use of pronouns to good effect: to indicate, accept, deny, or distance themselves from responsibility for political action; to reveal ideological bias; to encourage solidarity; to designate those who are supporters (with "us") as well as those who are enemies (against "us") and to present specific idiosyncratic aspects of the individuals and personality" (Wilson, 1990, 76). In addition, the four typologies of rhetoric above seek to delineate presidential purpose in policy proposal and popular address. The current sentiment in the discipline is that there is a significant change that occurs with the "modern" presidents (usually beginning with Wilson) in which popular address rhetoric begins to be used. My study suggests that founding presidents were as active as their contemporary counterparts in their inclusion of popular address in the State of the Union. It also takes issue with claims of easily utilized paradigms of presidential history, and demonstrates the importance of re-examining the oft dismissed "traditional" presidents for their contributions to presidential rhetorical development. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the development of the contemporary rhetorical presidency and the evolution of presidential rhetoric. It examines every State of the Union Addresses delivered by various U.S. presidents including George W. Bush. It looks at the total number of words and policies per State of the Union Address.