The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush

by Elvin T. Lim

In The Anti-Intellectual Presidency, Elvin Lim draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents' ability to communicate with the public. Lim argues that the ever-increasing pressure for presidents to manage public opinion and perception has created a "pathology of vacuous rhetoric and imagery" where gesture and appearance matter more than accomplishment and fact. Lim tracks the campaign to simplify presidential discourse through presidential and speechwriting decisions made from the Truman to the present administration, explaining how and why presidents have embraced anti-intellectualism and vague platitudes as a public relations strategy. Lim sees this anti-intellectual stance as a deliberate choice rather than a reflection of presidents' intellectual limitations. Only the smart, he suggests, know how to dumb down. The result, he shows, is a dangerous debasement of our political discourse and a quality of rhetoric which has been described, charitably, as "a linguistic struggle" and, perhaps more accurately, as "dogs barking idiotically through endless nights." Sharply written and incisively argued, The Anti-Intellectual Presidency sheds new light on the murky depths of presidential oratory, illuminating both the causes and consequences of this substantive impoverishment.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics

208 pages, Paperback

First published June 16, 2008

Reviews

[Tiffany Conner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a delightful intellectual romp. At the outset of his work Dr. Lim dispels any notions that this book is but another indictment of the syntax-challenged presidency we are soon to bid adieu. In fact, Lim's indictment cogently and eloquently finds flaw with administrations from both sides of the aisle and from all time periods. The larger concern for Lim is that in resorting to "platitudes and partisanship" as opposed to genuine, rigorous, substantive arguments, presidents have abandoned their true role as democracy's stalwart. In their efforts to appear "folksy" and "down home", presidents have belittled our importance and held us lacking of the requisite acumen for deliberation on matters of policy, matters deeply impacting the lives of millions. For my money the best part of the book consisted of Lim's writing in support of his thesis that the roots of the anti-intellectual presidency may be traced to 1969. In this year speech writing, which had once been an intricate component in the policy apparatus of an administration, was separated and essentially became the presidential PR window dressing we are mostly exposed to.

If you have any interest in politics, intellectual history, or just like good, challenging, academic research, this is a fine book.

P to the S . . . Don't let the graphs scare you away. Lim is a Government professor at Wesleyan and as a "social scientist" I'm sure he was required to insert graphs so that he might legitimize his claims. Or not. Either way, they're quite useful to his enterprise.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very rarely do I come into a book so predisposed to agree with the author's point of view only to put it down at the end completely opposed to it. Based on my background, you could classify me as an "educated coastal elite" yet in reading this book I felt that I understood why people don't trust intellectuals. His approach is off-putting and in support of elitism. Mr. Lim constantly confuses rhetoric with complexity. If you were to share axiom "Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do." with him, he would likely openly scoff and accuse you of being an anti-intellectual.

Instead of a study of the decline of intellectual ideals in presidency from Washington to Bush, the book is largely focused on how speech writing tactics have changed from FDR to Bush. There are interesting quotes from a few speech writers, but the statement in the book's description the author is drawing "on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline" is a gross exaggeration for a book that is largely just the author complaining about the use of less complex language and that the public is no longer given the opportunity to debate policy.

I gave the book a 2 largely because I learned a few useful pointers in my communication style by highlighting practices that Mr. Lim complained about.

[Dom Greco · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book does a good job of leaving readers with a lot of interesting questions to contemplate and consider further, so that readers can determine for themselves if and to what extent it is desirable, and practical, for presidents, and others who hold or aspire to elective office in a democracy, to design their communications so that such communications are more intellectual, and less anti-intellectual. For example:

1. Wants versus needs – Should political figures in a democracy communicate information to the public that (X) the public wants or (Y) that a political figure believes that the public should have?

2. Whose judgment – If and when should a public figure in a democracy substitute their judgment for that of the voters?

3. Emotional versus rational – Do most voters make voting decisions based primarily upon (X) what is emotionally comfortable for them, or (Y) what they believed to be most rational?

4. Practicality – Is it realistic to expect that a public figure can as a practical matter do anything that would be effective in causing voters to become more intellectual than they are?

5. Voter participation – Do efforts to increase voter registration, and voter participation in elections, have a tendency of increasing the percentage of voters whose voting decisions are more driven by their emotions than their intellect, so as to discourage public figures from engaging in more intellectual communications?

6. Conditioning voting – Would it be appropriate in a democracy to place conditions on eligible voters that would discourage, or limit, voters to those who would be more likely to welcome and be receptive to more intellectual communications?

7. Voter comfort – Is it true that voters are more comfortable electing candidates who they perceive to be similar to themselves, so that the larger the percent of the voters that are anti-intellectual the greater the political appeal of candidates with anti-intellectual communications, so that it is unrealistic to expect candidates to use more intellectual communications until such time as the population becomes more intellectual?

8. Justifying emotional decisions – Are there significant numbers of voters who would classify themselves as motivated more by intellect than emotion, but who in reality are merely looking for what they perceive to be intellectual, or rational, justifications to support their emotional inclinations?

9. Intellectual discomfort – Does history show that candidates for public office who are perceived by the voters as being more intellectual than the voters likely to be victorious or defeated for election or reelection?

10. What voters want – Do most voters want their political views and opinions (X) confirmed, or (Y) challenged?

11. Education or inspiration – If most voters are given a choice between the following, which would they select (X) being more educated, or (Y) being more inspired?

12. Political deadlock – Would giving the voters more information, and more alternatives to consider, be more or less conducive to reducing the “political deadlock” that many say characterizes present-day politics?

13. Anti-intellectualism inherent in democracy – Is it inherent in the nature of democracy itself that candidates for public office will respond to the emotions of the voters?

14. Officials as leaders or followers – Do most voters want elected officials (X) to do with the voters want done by “following” the lead of the voters, or (Y) to “lead” the voters in the direction that the officials believe that the voters should be led to?

We need to have answers to these and other questions in order to determine if it is practical, and feasible, to expect candidates for public office, such as presidential candidates, to make their communications to the public less anti-intellectual, and more intellectual.

The author has certainly given us all a lot to think about.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Supported by extensive research and interviews with 42 presidential speech writers, The Anti-Intellectual Presidency proposes the theory (among several) that the decline in the discourse and deliberation of national policy by the public can be traced to the tendency by the Executive Branch to not merely oversimplify said issues in Presidential remarks, but also through the desire of the Office to deify the public’s “common sense” to justify the simplification to begin with. The decline in linguistic selections that encourage or even acknowledge deliberation and discussion of complex policies is measured in several ways: by scoring Presidential addresses on the Flesch Readability scale; by tracking synonymic linguistic categories of, for example, hostility, negativity, and power loss; and by illuminating the goals of the presidential speechwriting staff through direct and discovered interviews. Lim argues too that President Nixon’s choice in 1969 to officially separate speechwriters and policy advisors into distinct camps formalized already escalating anti-intellectual tendencies, eventually creating, among many problems, the myth of Presidents being too overburdened to craft their own addresses, and the injection of essentially any policy details into public addresses.

Lim’s books provides an extensive index, deep bibliography, and several revealing appendices. This is an excellent and engaging book.

[Loyola University Chicago Libraries · Rating 4 out of 5]

Supported by extensive research and interviews with 42 presidential speech writers, The Anti-Intellectual Presidency proposes the theory (among several) that the decline in the discourse and deliberation of national policy by the public can be traced to the tendency by the Executive Branch to not merely oversimplify said issues in Presidential remarks, but also through the desire of the Office to deify the public’s “common sense” to justify the simplification to begin with. The decline in linguistic selections that encourage or even acknowledge deliberation and discussion of complex policies is measured in several ways: by scoring Presidential addresses on the Flesch Readability scale; by tracking synonymic linguistic categories of, for example, hostility, negativity, and power loss; and by illuminating the goals of the presidential speechwriting staff through direct and discovered interviews. Lim argues too that President Nixon’s choice in 1969 to officially separate speechwriters and policy advisors into distinct camps formalized already escalating anti-intellectual tendencies, eventually creating, among many problems, the myth of Presidents being too overburdened to craft their own addresses, and the injection of essentially any policy details into public addresses.

Lim’s books provides an extensive index, deep bibliography, and several revealing appendices. This is an excellent and engaging book.

[Sheryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd give this 2.5 stars. It had some interesting information in it, especially the sections on presidential speech writers. Unfortunately it read like a book whose author is gunning for tenure-- too many pages wasted on defining what he was going to talk about, and what he wasn't going to talk about, and why.

[Mina]

This is the last thing I read in the Preface

"Our society’s disquiet toward presidential rhetoric is as old as Plato’s belief that “oratory is a spurious counterfeit of a branch of the art of government,” "

My Big Fat Greek Wedding Bonus quote

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has some interesting theories but doesn't justify its findings very well and can further explain and justify some of its claims.