you some help. There was a “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. a business—you Somebody else If you’ve got didn’t build that. made that that when we succeed, we succeed because of happen. (…) The point is, is our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” --President Barack Obama, July 13, 2012 you know, you think been successful because “[Obama] says, you’ve you’re smart, but he says a lot of people are smart. You think been successful because you you’ve work hard, a lot of people work hard. This is an ideology which says ‘hey, we’re all the same here, we ought to take from all and give to one another and that achievement, individual initiative and risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the a very strange and in some respects foreign to the past. It’s American experience type of philosophy. So his whole philosophy is an (…) philosophy that does not comport with the American experience.” --Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Candidate, July 23, 2012 The notion of the a prominent position in the study of the “public presidency” occupies modern office. The empirical effectiveness and normative implications of presidential efforts to shape public opinion through media are matters of debate, but it is clear that these efforts have become a defining feature of the contemporary institution; perhaps the very of the “essence modern (Tulis 1987, 4). Therefore, when it comes to understanding the nature of the presidency” presidency in American politics, we can start from the presumption that words matter. When studying the presidency, it is also safe to assume that political language is strategic. It may be ineffective in its consequences or difficult to measure, but its intention is to serve as a tool for persuasion. Questions concerning the ability of presidential rhetoric to move public opinion, to frame public problems and policy solutions, to define oneself or are one’s opponents, all grounded in this assumption. My intention is not dispute this conception of political language-as-instrument, but rather to suggests that there is more to the story—that is, efforts to articulate the significance of presidential rhetoric are not exhausted by causal explanations and
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. (…) The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” --President Barack Obama, July 13, 2012 “[Obama] says, you know, you think you’ve been successful because you’re smart, but he says a lot of people are smart. You think you’ve been successful because you work hard, a lot of people work hard. This is an ideology which says ‘hey, we’re all the same here, we ought to take from all and give to one another and that achievement, individual initiative and risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past. It’s a very strange and in some respects foreign to the American experience type of philosophy. (…) So his whole philosophy is an philosophy that does not comport with the American experience.” --Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Candidate, July 23, 2012 The notion of the “public presidency” occupies a prominent position in the study of the modern office. The empirical effectiveness and normative implications of presidential efforts to shape public opinion through media are matters of debate, but it is clear that these efforts have become a defining feature of the contemporary institution; perhaps the very “essence of the modern presidency” (Tulis 1987, 4). Therefore, when it comes to understanding the nature of the presidency in American politics, we can start from the presumption that words matter. When studying the presidency, it is also safe to assume that political language is strategic. It may be ineffective in its consequences or difficult to measure, but its intention is to serve as a tool for persuasion. Questions concerning the ability of presidential rhetoric to move public opinion, to frame public problems and policy solutions, to define oneself or one’s opponents, are all grounded in this assumption. My intention is not dispute this conception of political language-as-instrument, but rather to suggests that there is more to the story—that is, efforts to articulate the significance of presidential rhetoric are not exhausted by causal explanations and