Reassessing the Assumptions behind the Evolution of Popular Presidential Communication

Abstract

Most scholars agree that the presidency underwent an important evolution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. However, the causes of these changes continue to be subject to rigorous debate. Using a multimethod approach, I find that the political opportunities and incentives that presented themselves in the nineteenth and early twentieth century shaped presidential rhetorical behavior rather than the president's personal or partisan ideology.

Going Social: A Comparative Analysis of Presidents' Official and Social Media Messages

“…First, Twitter alters our understanding of the mode of presidential communication. While Tulis (1987), Pluta (2015), and others consider whether a message was written or spoken to be of central importance, we argue that the characteristics of tweets might alter the relevance of a written–spoken dichotomy as the relevant dimension of a presidential message. We suggest that the conversational and informal nature of Twitter as a medium of communication makes it more akin to spoken communication in its formulation and intent.…”

“…Pluta defines four elements of presidents' rhetorical behavior in her analysis of nineteenth‐century presidents, including the mode (written versus spoken), content (intellectual quality), the audience, and the frequency of spoken popular presidential communication (2015, 70). We use these elements as a starting point for defining the variables in our analysis.…”

“…Our data do not allow us to measure the audience of presidents' messages, or their success at changing opinion, but determining the audience and the persuasive effects of presidential messages on recipients is a critical question for future research. Instead, we focus on the other three elements of Pluta's (2015) definitions, and we argue the emergence of social media alters these elements significantly.…”

“Going Public” in Comparative Perspective: Presidents’ Public Appeals under Pure Presidentialism

“…Yet at the same time, both strains of research construe populism and presidents’ plebiscitarian orientation as a personality trait or leadership style (Barber ; Neustadt ), with scholars accommodating, extending, and refining the contours of concepts when deemed appropriate and necessary (Barr ; Roberts ; Seligson ; Weyland ; ). Though presidential appeals to the public are widely acknowledged to be strategic in nature (Pluta ; Stuckey ; Weyland ), a plebiscitarian orientation as a leadership style has tended to orient the focus of research to case studies of exemplary individuals, rather than considering this a behavioral tactic that might be strategically deployed in response to a change in the political and institutional landscape (cf. Windsor et al ).…”

“…Although American and comparative scholars have recognized this fact, only rarely have presidents’ plebiscitarian powers garnered explicit empirical scrutiny. Broad literatures theorize the effects of presidential powers on policy making, considering the effects of unilateral actions and vetoes (Cameron ; Carey and Shugart ; Negretto ; Palanza and Sin ; Shair‐Rosenfield and Stoyan ), legislative authority and partisan support (Bolton and Thrower ; Calvo ; Carey ; Morgenstern ; Shugart and Carey ), and presidential personality and charisma (Barber ; Kernell ; Neustadt ; Pluta ; Weyland ; ) on presidents’ legislative success, political influence, and legacy beyond their term in office. While extant research provides a rich understanding of the nuances of institutional and legislative presidential powers, seldom are presidents’ relationships with the national public the object of direct empirical consideration, and then only rarely in such a way that would allow for the evaluation of multiple or competing hypotheses.…”