What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rhetorical Presidency: New Edition
Modern presidents regularly appeal over the heads of Congress to the people at large to generate support for public policies. The Rhetorical Presidency makes the case that this development, born at the outset of the twentieth century, is the product of conscious political choices that fundamentally transformed the presidency and the meaning of American governance. Now with a new foreword by Russell Muirhead and a new afterword by the author, this landmark work probes political pathologies and analyzes the dilemmas of presidential statecraft. Extending a tradition of American political writing that begins with The Federalist and continues with Woodrow Wilson’s Congressional Government, The Rhetorical Presidency remains a pivotal work in its field.
255 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 1987
18 people are currently reading
412 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 5, 2025
An impressive reconceptualization of American leadership – especially for its time. Tulis identifies two distinct eras in the history of presidential communication. By his telling, from founding through the end of the 19th century, the executive was reliant on stringent “forms and formalities” in order to maintain some distance from the public (instead, primarily addressing its political agenda to the other branches of government). This was undertaken purposefully, with the understanding that such practices served as the best means to foster deliberation and safeguard the nation against the threat of demagoguery. However, the 20th century ushered in a new relationship with the constitutional system – and the executive’s place within it. From then on, presidents would begin to appeal to the public over the heads of Congress. For Tulis, this is no niche concern. Instead, it represents a fundamental shift in the way our nation both crafts and implements policy. Tulis conducts a satisfying assessment of the rhetorical presidency’s strengths and weaknesses. On one hand, it provides leadership with a tool to transcend the customary gridlock of government in moments of crisis thereby empowering it to undertake necessary and decisive action. On the other, overreliance on this reinterpretation of “second constitution” theory places the nation in a state of permanent crisis politics. Interchange between the branches of government ¬– not to mention thoughtful and strategic law making – becomes more difficult. Presidents struggle to retain credibility as they juggle the commitments they must now make before both Congress and the public.
Though Tulis minimizes the causative impact of mass media and modern communication technologies in midwifing this revolution, I’m not sure I’ve been entirely convinced. An exercise in comparative politics would have been interesting here: was the rhetorical presidency truly a byproduct of unique tensions within America’s constitutional order or is it an inevitable downstream effect of modernizing societies? Still, while the Tulisian paradigm is undoubtedly at least a little reductive (one neat exchange on its legacy and continued relevance – Laracey, Crockett), it proves to be an invigorating framing device. Through this lens, mavericks from Jefferson to Jackson are transformed into staid defenders of the founding vision; presidents as diverse as Andrew Johnson and Woodrow Wilson are cast as the great blasphemers. It is a reminder that our beloved norms and systems are far more mutable than they might appear from the inside.
This 2017 reissue provides additional commentary on the three decades’ worth of developments since initial publication. I’d have been curious to see the thinking applied to 47 as well. In some ways, one might perhaps argue that it represents the first “post-rhetorical” presidency – flooding the zones of popular communication with so much bullshit that they become overwhelmed (and largely useless in holding the executive to account), thereby allowing the executive to enact its agenda without much concern for public credibility or consistent messaging (to say nothing of the old reliance upon credibility or consistent messaging for political capital within the halls of government itself). To be honest, though, I’m basically sick of intellectualizing the train wreck at this point. I’ll leave that to somebody else. Anyway, some perfunctory notes from the read included below.
THC #26
-------
1. Introduction: The Rhetorical Presidency
“Prior to this century, presidents preferred written communications between the branches of government to oral addresses ‘to the people.’” Popular speeches were mostly ceremonial.
“To comprehend this sort of change – indeed, to identify it as change – one must be prepared to treat the political order as an arena in which ideas matter. One must be prepared to reverse the common assumption that ideas are “epiphenomenal,” that is, mere reflections of important political developments, and to entertain the possibility that thought might constitute politics.”
Interesting idea of the multi-layered constitution. Original remains intact (basic features of government branches, questions not reopened). “Second constitution” layered on top of this. Presidential and public understanding of the character of the system (and the president’s place within it). This has been altered.
Federalist is the deepest and most coherent articulation of original constitutional doctrine. FDR uses popular appeal effectively (after Andrew Johnson failed). Woodrow Wilson is most comprehensive articulation of this “second constitution” theory. The book will then discuss shortfalls. Contrast “Roosevelt’s great individual ability to combine rhetorical campaign with traditional political skills” with LBJ’s “immediate legislative success brought with it long-term failure.”
“A fundamental dilemma is to provide institutional means for crises without making those crisis tools – and crises themselves – routine. The danger from the routine action of crisis is that the political system loses its ability to govern well between emergencies.”
2. The Old Way: Founding and Forms
Madison rejects to frequent appeals to the people. Government needs to be venerated. Would otherwise disrupt the tranquility of the society. Also makes the executive more beholden to people compared to legislature (because a singular target) and therefore unable to execute job as effectively. It would be forced to execute policy on the grounds of passion instead of reason.
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Designed government to shield president from daily shifts of public option “so that he could refine it and, paradoxically, better serve popular interests.”
No popular rhetoric in Washington’s inaugural addresses. Ceremonial and formal display on patriotism/virtue. Reverence to the constitution.
“One measure of distance between nineteenth- and twentieth-century politics in America is the careful attendance to forms and formalities in the former and the instinctive contempt for them today.”
3. The Old Way: Developed and Expressed
Andrew Johnson was the lone 19th century president who did not adhere to the forms and doctrine of the constitutional order.
“Only four of twenty-four presidents attempted to defend or attack a specific bill or law. Only two presidents made a partisan speech.”
Of Washington’s farewell address: “The fact that historians, like Kremlinologists today, have to examine the document with extreme care in order to find hints of partisanship is indicative of the power and constraint of the form of address adopted.”
Speeches on tour were simply “general articulations of republican sentiment, not even a clear enunciation of principle.”
Martin Van Buren highly criticized for singling out “Democratic fellow citizens” in a speech. Extent of popular partisan rhetoric lol.
Even Lincoln, though he conducted many public appearances, would not discuss the issues of the day extemporaneously. They would await a “proper” discussion. He believed hasty statements would constrain his ability to proceed with the best course of action by committing him to certain policies prematurely and possibly take less optimal decisions.
Andrew Johnson was the great exception. Essentially a stump speaker not an orator. Completely went against norms. Responded to hecklers. Compared himself to Christ. Articles of impeachment: “Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandals all good citizens.” Ultimately his popular rhetoric was ineffective and backfired.
4. The Middle Way: Statesmanship as Moderation
Teddy Roosevelt represents the middle way. A “campaign for moderation - moderate use of popular rhetoric, moderate appeals for moderate form (that did not socialize but merely regulated industrial capitalism), and most importantly, an appeal to moderate disputes that Roosevelt feared might anticipate and signal class antagonism severe enough to prompt a civil war.”
TR needed to use “plebiscitary leadership” to defend administrative republic from demagogues. He “presumed that, periodically, the perspective of founder need be adopted to preserve or improve the constitutional order. Occasional ‘refoundings’ would be necessary.”
During the campaign for the Hepburn Act, he “publicly diagnosed and addressed his constitutional crisis.” Railroad regulation a very salient issue at the heart of class divides that worried TR.
“From Cromwell’s errors, Roosevelt learned the importance of forms and formalities in politics, and the need for the statesman to look to the long-term preservation of these forms even as he violates them in a crisis.”
5. The New Way: Leadership as Interpretation
Complete change in practice lands at feet of Woodrow Wilson, who “uniting the inspirational form of Teddy Roosevelt with the policy specifics of Taft.” He thought that political systems shouldn’t be “Newtonian”; rather, they should be “Darwinian”.
His view of presidential leadership was a bit different than a “representative” of the public or a guide: “‘Interpretation’ involves two skills. First, the leader must understand the true majority sentiment underneath the contradictory positions of factions and the discordant views of the mass. Second, the leader must explain the people’s true desires to them in a way that is easily comprehended and convincing.”
Changed the forms. Policy rhetoric would be delivered orally (instead of written) and addressed to the people (instead of congress).
6. Limits of Leadership
Wilson’s problems in trying to sell the League of Nations to both the public and the Senate – rhetoric used for one alienated the other. Because popular rhetoric had been “legitimized,” it meant that senators treated his comments to the people as his true feelings (rather than simply “popular remarks designed to move a crowd rather than express official policy”), so they thought either he lied to them or that his views were contradictory.
LBJ’s “war on poverty” campaign turns deliberation into popular rhetoric. Senators are forced to become more concerned with headlines and positioning things favorably to the public rather than the technical deliberations of the issue. Political merits are immense. Legislative merits become secondary. And failed along similar lines. That which helped with adoption undermined its implementation.
7. Dilemmas of Governance
“The more the rhetorical presidency succeeds as a strategy in the short term, the more likely it is that deliberative processes will be eroded. Today the pace of policy development follows less the rhythms of Congress and more the dynamics of public opinion.” There is more mutability of the law, causing vast swings in policy between presidents as entire “packages” of programs billed together with popular rhetoric are adopted or cast aside.
Rhetorical leadership was originally adopted for times of crisis. If “crisis politics” become routine, “we may be losing the ability as a people to distinguish genuine from spurious crises. Intended to ameliorate crises, the rhetorical presidency is now the creator of cruises or pseudo-crises.”
Developments that facilitated the rhetorical presidency:
Ronald Reagan the rhetorical president incarnate. The great communicator. Chief marketer. Less originator of policy.
“The problem of presidential credibility might not result so much from a defect in character as from the competing rhetorical contexts in which presidents and their administrators place themselves.”
Afterword
Haunting afterword written in March of Trump’s first term. A glimmer of hope in closing words that “common sense, felt experience, and the residue of historical memory may be the remaining defense against the degradation of democracy in America.” Now we sit in March of the second assault on the office. Oh dear.
Though Tulis minimizes the causative impact of mass media and modern communication technologies in midwifing this revolution, I’m not sure I’ve been entirely convinced. An exercise in comparative politics would have been interesting here: was the rhetorical presidency truly a byproduct of unique tensions within America’s constitutional order or is it an inevitable downstream effect of modernizing societies? Still, while the Tulisian paradigm is undoubtedly at least a little reductive (one neat exchange on its legacy and continued relevance – Laracey, Crockett), it proves to be an invigorating framing device. Through this lens, mavericks from Jefferson to Jackson are transformed into staid defenders of the founding vision; presidents as diverse as Andrew Johnson and Woodrow Wilson are cast as the great blasphemers. It is a reminder that our beloved norms and systems are far more mutable than they might appear from the inside.
This 2017 reissue provides additional commentary on the three decades’ worth of developments since initial publication. I’d have been curious to see the thinking applied to 47 as well. In some ways, one might perhaps argue that it represents the first “post-rhetorical” presidency – flooding the zones of popular communication with so much bullshit that they become overwhelmed (and largely useless in holding the executive to account), thereby allowing the executive to enact its agenda without much concern for public credibility or consistent messaging (to say nothing of the old reliance upon credibility or consistent messaging for political capital within the halls of government itself). To be honest, though, I’m basically sick of intellectualizing the train wreck at this point. I’ll leave that to somebody else. Anyway, some perfunctory notes from the read included below.
THC #26
-------
1. Introduction: The Rhetorical Presidency
“Prior to this century, presidents preferred written communications between the branches of government to oral addresses ‘to the people.’” Popular speeches were mostly ceremonial.
“To comprehend this sort of change – indeed, to identify it as change – one must be prepared to treat the political order as an arena in which ideas matter. One must be prepared to reverse the common assumption that ideas are “epiphenomenal,” that is, mere reflections of important political developments, and to entertain the possibility that thought might constitute politics.”
Interesting idea of the multi-layered constitution. Original remains intact (basic features of government branches, questions not reopened). “Second constitution” layered on top of this. Presidential and public understanding of the character of the system (and the president’s place within it). This has been altered.
Federalist is the deepest and most coherent articulation of original constitutional doctrine. FDR uses popular appeal effectively (after Andrew Johnson failed). Woodrow Wilson is most comprehensive articulation of this “second constitution” theory. The book will then discuss shortfalls. Contrast “Roosevelt’s great individual ability to combine rhetorical campaign with traditional political skills” with LBJ’s “immediate legislative success brought with it long-term failure.”
“A fundamental dilemma is to provide institutional means for crises without making those crisis tools – and crises themselves – routine. The danger from the routine action of crisis is that the political system loses its ability to govern well between emergencies.”
2. The Old Way: Founding and Forms
Madison rejects to frequent appeals to the people. Government needs to be venerated. Would otherwise disrupt the tranquility of the society. Also makes the executive more beholden to people compared to legislature (because a singular target) and therefore unable to execute job as effectively. It would be forced to execute policy on the grounds of passion instead of reason.
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Designed government to shield president from daily shifts of public option “so that he could refine it and, paradoxically, better serve popular interests.”
No popular rhetoric in Washington’s inaugural addresses. Ceremonial and formal display on patriotism/virtue. Reverence to the constitution.
“One measure of distance between nineteenth- and twentieth-century politics in America is the careful attendance to forms and formalities in the former and the instinctive contempt for them today.”
3. The Old Way: Developed and Expressed
Andrew Johnson was the lone 19th century president who did not adhere to the forms and doctrine of the constitutional order.
“Only four of twenty-four presidents attempted to defend or attack a specific bill or law. Only two presidents made a partisan speech.”
Of Washington’s farewell address: “The fact that historians, like Kremlinologists today, have to examine the document with extreme care in order to find hints of partisanship is indicative of the power and constraint of the form of address adopted.”
Speeches on tour were simply “general articulations of republican sentiment, not even a clear enunciation of principle.”
Martin Van Buren highly criticized for singling out “Democratic fellow citizens” in a speech. Extent of popular partisan rhetoric lol.
Even Lincoln, though he conducted many public appearances, would not discuss the issues of the day extemporaneously. They would await a “proper” discussion. He believed hasty statements would constrain his ability to proceed with the best course of action by committing him to certain policies prematurely and possibly take less optimal decisions.
Andrew Johnson was the great exception. Essentially a stump speaker not an orator. Completely went against norms. Responded to hecklers. Compared himself to Christ. Articles of impeachment: “Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandals all good citizens.” Ultimately his popular rhetoric was ineffective and backfired.
4. The Middle Way: Statesmanship as Moderation
Teddy Roosevelt represents the middle way. A “campaign for moderation - moderate use of popular rhetoric, moderate appeals for moderate form (that did not socialize but merely regulated industrial capitalism), and most importantly, an appeal to moderate disputes that Roosevelt feared might anticipate and signal class antagonism severe enough to prompt a civil war.”
TR needed to use “plebiscitary leadership” to defend administrative republic from demagogues. He “presumed that, periodically, the perspective of founder need be adopted to preserve or improve the constitutional order. Occasional ‘refoundings’ would be necessary.”
During the campaign for the Hepburn Act, he “publicly diagnosed and addressed his constitutional crisis.” Railroad regulation a very salient issue at the heart of class divides that worried TR.
“From Cromwell’s errors, Roosevelt learned the importance of forms and formalities in politics, and the need for the statesman to look to the long-term preservation of these forms even as he violates them in a crisis.”
5. The New Way: Leadership as Interpretation
Complete change in practice lands at feet of Woodrow Wilson, who “uniting the inspirational form of Teddy Roosevelt with the policy specifics of Taft.” He thought that political systems shouldn’t be “Newtonian”; rather, they should be “Darwinian”.
His view of presidential leadership was a bit different than a “representative” of the public or a guide: “‘Interpretation’ involves two skills. First, the leader must understand the true majority sentiment underneath the contradictory positions of factions and the discordant views of the mass. Second, the leader must explain the people’s true desires to them in a way that is easily comprehended and convincing.”
Changed the forms. Policy rhetoric would be delivered orally (instead of written) and addressed to the people (instead of congress).
6. Limits of Leadership
Wilson’s problems in trying to sell the League of Nations to both the public and the Senate – rhetoric used for one alienated the other. Because popular rhetoric had been “legitimized,” it meant that senators treated his comments to the people as his true feelings (rather than simply “popular remarks designed to move a crowd rather than express official policy”), so they thought either he lied to them or that his views were contradictory.
LBJ’s “war on poverty” campaign turns deliberation into popular rhetoric. Senators are forced to become more concerned with headlines and positioning things favorably to the public rather than the technical deliberations of the issue. Political merits are immense. Legislative merits become secondary. And failed along similar lines. That which helped with adoption undermined its implementation.
7. Dilemmas of Governance
“The more the rhetorical presidency succeeds as a strategy in the short term, the more likely it is that deliberative processes will be eroded. Today the pace of policy development follows less the rhythms of Congress and more the dynamics of public opinion.” There is more mutability of the law, causing vast swings in policy between presidents as entire “packages” of programs billed together with popular rhetoric are adopted or cast aside.
Rhetorical leadership was originally adopted for times of crisis. If “crisis politics” become routine, “we may be losing the ability as a people to distinguish genuine from spurious crises. Intended to ameliorate crises, the rhetorical presidency is now the creator of cruises or pseudo-crises.”
Developments that facilitated the rhetorical presidency:
1) Campaigns – Wilson engaging in speaking tours. “Attempt to form a party around a candidate, rather than to capture nomination by successful appeal to party leaders inside pre-existing organizations.” Now parties are an empty vehicle to be piloted. As elections heat up earlier and earlier, the distinction between campaigning and governing is eroded.
2) Wordsmiths/speechwriting staff as an “institutional locus of policymaking”
3) Modern mass media gives the rhetorical presidency a means to communicate directly with a large national audience. Surveys exacerbate this issue by encouraging a jump to the bottom line of issues without nuance or deliberation. Puts pressure on the president to focus on these granular data. “In this fictive assembly, television speaks to the president in metaphors expressive of the ‘opinions’ of a fictive people and the president responds to the demands and moods created by the media with rhetoric designed to manipulate popular passions rather than engage citizens in political debate.”
Ronald Reagan the rhetorical president incarnate. The great communicator. Chief marketer. Less originator of policy.
“The problem of presidential credibility might not result so much from a defect in character as from the competing rhetorical contexts in which presidents and their administrators place themselves.”
Afterword
Haunting afterword written in March of Trump’s first term. A glimmer of hope in closing words that “common sense, felt experience, and the residue of historical memory may be the remaining defense against the degradation of democracy in America.” Now we sit in March of the second assault on the office. Oh dear.
August 7, 2019
This book laid the foundation to understand the current President. Buy the new edition; it contains Tulis’s evaluations of George HW Bush through Trump.
This book’s importance is profound; read it.
This book’s importance is profound; read it.
March 5, 2025
Fascinating study of presidential rhetoric, showing how it has changed from Washington to Reagan, and, in the 2017 edition, an afterword bringing it up to the beginnings of the first Trump Presidency. Illuminates how, as a result of this rhetorical shift, "unscrupulous and selfish presidents" can degrade democracy in America in just the way the founders feared.
October 14, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Can you tell I’m in a presidency course? Can you tell it’s assigned one million books?
Overall I liked this one a lot! Well written and easy to understand. Did it all in one sitting and it was still very comprehendable — yay! :)
Can you tell I’m in a presidency course? Can you tell it’s assigned one million books?
Overall I liked this one a lot! Well written and easy to understand. Did it all in one sitting and it was still very comprehendable — yay! :)
May 29, 2022
The single best examination of the office of the presidency that I have read. It’s thesis is well defended and incredibly prescient.
May 17, 2007
How rhetoric in the executive has changed over the course of the United States' history and how it's meaning has been corrupted and altered to twisted interpretations of the constitution. A interesting look at how societal norms create an appropriate context for rhetoric. Also how rhetoric can change the views of society at the same time in unimaginable ways.
Read
March 9, 2009Politics
March 10, 2011
Academic and narrow - not very good.
December 28, 2018
PLS 305: Congress & the Presidency
Although written in the 1980s, many of the ideas still resonate with the current state of the office; the way Presidents communicate will always evolve & change
Although written in the 1980s, many of the ideas still resonate with the current state of the office; the way Presidents communicate will always evolve & change
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews