In The Presidential Road Show: Public Leadership in an Era of Party Polarization and Media Fragmentation, Diane J. Heith evaluates presidential leadership by critically examining a fundamental tenet of the presidency: the national nature of the office. The fact that the entire nation votes for the office seemingly imbues the presidency with leadership opportunities that rest on appeals to the mass public. Yet, presidents earn the office not by appealing to the nation but rather by assembling a coalition of supporters, predominantly partisans. Moreover, once in office, recent presidents have had trouble controlling their message in the fragmented media environment. The combined constraints of the electoral coalition and media environment influence the nature of public leadership presidents can exercise. Using a data set containing not only speech content but also the classification of the audience, Diane J. Heith finds that rhetorical leadership is constituency driven and targets audiences differently. Comparing tone, content, and tactics of national and local speeches reveals that presidents are abandoning national strategies in favor of local leadership efforts that may be tailored to the variety of political contexts a president must confront.
The End of the Rhetorical Presidency? Public Leadership in the Trump Era explores one of the most disruptive aspects of the Trump presidency. Since the FDR administration, presidents developed the capacity and skill to use the public to influence the legislative arena, gain reelection, survive scandal and secure their legacy. Consequently, presidential rhetorical leadership has its own norms and expectations. Comparing President Trump’s communications apparatus as well as rhetoric (including Twitter) to previous presidents, Diane Heith demonstrates how Trump exercises leadership by adhering to some of these norms and expectations, but rejects, abandons and undermines most. Heith argues that his individual, rather than institutional, approach to leadership represents a change in tone, language and style. She concludes that the loss of skill and capacity represents a devolution of the White House institution dedicated to public leadership, especially in the legislative arena. More significantly, the individual approach emphasizes weakening the ability of the press and other political elites to hold the president accountable. This book will appeal to students and scholars of the presidency as well as general readers who quest for a deeper understanding of the Trump White House.
Presidents spend millions of dollars on public opinion polling while in office. Critics often point to this polling as evidence that a permanent campaign has taken over the White House at the expense of traditional governance. But has presidential polling truly changed the shape of presidential leadership? Diane J. Heith examines the polling practices of six presidential administrationsthose of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clintondissecting the poll apparatus of each period. She contends that while White House polls significantly influence presidential messages and responses to events, they do not impact presidential decisions to the extent that observers often claim. Heith concludes that polling, and thus the campaign environment, exists in tandem with long-established governing strategies.
In The Presidential Road Show: Public Leadership in an Era of Party Polarization and Media Fragmentation, Diane J. Heith evaluates presidential leadership by critically examining a fundamental tenet of the presidency: the national nature of the office. The fact that the entire nation votes for the office seemingly imbues the presidency with leadership opportunities that rest on appeals to the mass public. Yet, presidents earn the office not by appealing to the nation but rather by assembling a coalition of supporters, predominantly partisans. Moreover, once in office, recent presidents have had trouble controlling their message in the fragmented media environment. The combined constraints of the electoral coalition and media environment influence the nature of public leadership presidents can exercise. Using a data set containing not only speech content but also the classification of the audience, Diane J. Heith finds that rhetorical leadership is constituency driven and targets audiences differently. Comparing tone, content, and tactics of national and local speeches reveals that presidents are abandoning national strategies in favor of local leadership efforts that may be tailored to the variety of political contexts a president must confront.
Presidents spend millions of dollars on public opinion polling while in office. Critics often point to this polling as evidence that a permanent campaign has taken over the White House at the expense of traditional governance. But has presidential polling truly changed the shape of presidential leadership? Diane J. Heith examines the polling practices of six presidential administrationsthose of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clintondissecting the poll apparatus of each period. She contends that while White House polls significantly influence presidential messages and responses to events, they do not impact presidential decisions to the extent that observers often claim. Heith concludes that polling, and thus the campaign environment, exists in tandem with long-established governing strategies.
The End of the Rhetorical Presidency? Public Leadership in the Trump Era explores one of the most disruptive aspects of the Trump presidency. Since the FDR administration, presidents developed the capacity and skill to use the public to influence the legislative arena, gain reelection, survive scandal and secure their legacy. Consequently, presidential rhetorical leadership has its own norms and expectations. Comparing President Trump’s communications apparatus as well as rhetoric (including Twitter) to previous presidents, Diane Heith demonstrates how Trump exercises leadership by adhering to some of these norms and expectations, but rejects, abandons and undermines most. Heith argues that his individual, rather than institutional, approach to leadership represents a change in tone, language and style. She concludes that the loss of skill and capacity represents a devolution of the White House institution dedicated to public leadership, especially in the legislative arena. More significantly, the individual approach emphasizes weakening the ability of the press and other political elites to hold the president accountable. This book will appeal to students and scholars of the presidency as well as general readers who quest for a deeper understanding of the Trump White House.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.