The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency written by James W. Ceaser, Glen E. Thurow, Jeffrey K. Tulis and Joseph M. Bessette, discussed various changes the electoral branch has experienced in the last 81 years and its overall effect on American politics. The key point this work touches on is “Popular or mass rhetoric, which presidents once employed only, rarely now serves as one of their principal tools in attempting to govern the nation”. The author's use various examples claiming the shift began at the beginning of 1900 and by 1913 there was a new rhetoric employed by the presidents to come.
At the beginning of this work the focus is on the effects on the modern presidency, framers intent for the presidency, how the rhetorical presidency developed, …show more content…
The backbone of this entire piece relates back to the intention of the framers and the argument for a new doctrine of presidency is built from that point forward. The first call of action is to dramatically reduce the amount presidential primaries and return the power of selection back to the parties. “This change would not eliminate the campaign, but it would reduce its public phase to a shorter period and thus focus public attention on the speech making that takes place after nomination”. The second call appeals to the president stating that “ presidents should reduce the number of their speeches” so their words carry more meaning. The author’s also argue that press conferences shouldn't always be televised due to the unnecessary stress it cause the president and media. The third call of action is that the character of the the president's rhetoric, although may still be inspirational and passionate, must be targeted at congress directly not to the …show more content…
The ideas that I disagreed with was the notion that we should let the parties pick out the presidential candidate, that the rhetoric prior to 1981 was an pressing issue and that we should really try to change the presidency. I did not like the idea of a party picked candidate because that gives the public no room to decide. The candidate would be highly polarized in one direction answering only to the needs of that party during his/her first term for hopes of reelection similar to some european system. The presidents of the 20th century that were most favored by the nation and achieved a lot during their presidencies happened to also write some of the most famous speeches still recognized today as a representation of what our nation wanted. This type of leadership provided calls to action to better our nation like Franklin D. Roosevelt's “all we have to fear is fear itself “. My last disagreement stems from the idea that we are past the point of change. I can see how the rhetoric of candidates and presidents alike can be dangerous to the our nation as misrepresentations of what the public really thinks. I do agree with these authors on that point after witnessing the televised drama of the 2016 election as well as the 180 character social media posts made by not only by our current president but other candidates in the 2016 election including
At the beginning of this work the focus is on the effects on the modern presidency, framers intent for the presidency, how the rhetorical presidency developed, …show more content…
The backbone of this entire piece relates back to the intention of the framers and the argument for a new doctrine of presidency is built from that point forward. The first call of action is to dramatically reduce the amount presidential primaries and return the power of selection back to the parties. “This change would not eliminate the campaign, but it would reduce its public phase to a shorter period and thus focus public attention on the speech making that takes place after nomination”. The second call appeals to the president stating that “ presidents should reduce the number of their speeches” so their words carry more meaning. The author’s also argue that press conferences shouldn't always be televised due to the unnecessary stress it cause the president and media. The third call of action is that the character of the the president's rhetoric, although may still be inspirational and passionate, must be targeted at congress directly not to the …show more content…
The ideas that I disagreed with was the notion that we should let the parties pick out the presidential candidate, that the rhetoric prior to 1981 was an pressing issue and that we should really try to change the presidency. I did not like the idea of a party picked candidate because that gives the public no room to decide. The candidate would be highly polarized in one direction answering only to the needs of that party during his/her first term for hopes of reelection similar to some european system. The presidents of the 20th century that were most favored by the nation and achieved a lot during their presidencies happened to also write some of the most famous speeches still recognized today as a representation of what our nation wanted. This type of leadership provided calls to action to better our nation like Franklin D. Roosevelt's “all we have to fear is fear itself “. My last disagreement stems from the idea that we are past the point of change. I can see how the rhetoric of candidates and presidents alike can be dangerous to the our nation as misrepresentations of what the public really thinks. I do agree with these authors on that point after witnessing the televised drama of the 2016 election as well as the 180 character social media posts made by not only by our current president but other candidates in the 2016 election including