The New Way

In my first blog post, I talked about the three ways of presidential use of rhetoric. The old way, the middle way and the new way.   In this post, I will give an overview of how the new way came into being and some ideas about how it compares to the system that the founders envisioned. One of the main goals of the founders was to avoid having a demagogue be in power but over time presidents have increasingly used their voice to sway the public.  First look to William Jennings Bryan and his failed 1896 campaign for president he used the power of the train to campaign all across the country.  In one instance he gave 36 speeches in one day. This allowed him to reach many more people than any candidate could have done before.  This shows the start of the new way presidential rhetoric.  Although he did not ultimately win the presidency, his aggressive style proved to be effective and would set the tone for future leaders.  Woodrow Wilson is really the first president to start using he voice to enact legislative change. Before presidents had mostly done dealings with the Congress to get the bills that they wanted.  But when Wilson wanted to have the League of Nations, and Congress was non-compliant, he went to the people.  His goal here was to go above Congress and sway the opinion of the people so that Congress would support his ideas.  The involved him going on a massive tour across the country.  If you click this link, you can see just how many addressing he was giving to help get his cause through.  His speeches only ceased when he suffered from a stroke and was no longer able to perform them. This new style from Wilson shows a massive shift from the founders who did not want someone to be able to sway the people so quickly.  They had seen many examples in the past like Alciabides where demagogues could mess up democracy.  The New Way was going nowhere though.  The next great example of a president using rhetoric effectively is FDR his fireside chats via radio helped him to connect with the public as no other president had been able to.  He would use these chats to help sway public opinion and get the people on his side when the Congress or the courts disagreed with him.  Public opinion can be the most powerful tool in government, and through his fireside chats, FDR was able to manipulate it very effectively. By swaying public opinion in these chats, he was able to achieve more of his goals because the Congress realized that if they did do what he wanted they would the support of the people.  FDR, although he was not doing anything terrible, was able to use public opinion to go over the heads of the other branches of government. The Nixon-Kennedy debates are another great example of how technology and has affected how rhetoric works.  Nixon who looked sick during the debate appeared to lose to most TV viewers even though a large margin of radio listeners thought he had won.  This big debate win helped JFK win the election of 1960.  It is a big change from what the founders envisioned from having electors carefully choose and vet people. To having the candidate who looks better win the election (this wasn't the only factor, but it did help).  Overall the perceptions of candidates and how they talk has become increasingly important.  In many ways, this is not the system of democracy that was envisioned by the founders at the constitutional convention.  Social media with things like Twitter is able to sway opinion in an instant and misinformation can change people views. None of these problems were even imaginable 250 years ago.  That's why I think that although the US has a pretty good system lots of things are unaccounted for and people should be taking a look at the system that was orignally created and what we have now.  There may be some changes needed in order to avoid another Alcibiades type figure like the founders feared.

Log Cabin Campaign

The first campaign to really resemble modern campaigns was the Log Cabin campaign of 1840.  In this campaign, William Henry Harrison was running against Incumbent Martin Van Buren. Harrison took a unique approach to this campaign. He started a very active campaign were he gave speeches across the country to various large groups of voters.  This had not really been done before in American Presidential campaigns.  Harrison painted himself as being from a log cabin, and he also touted his military success against the Indians. He painted Van Buren as an elite who was not in touch with the people.  This idea that Harrison was the log cabin candidate appealed to many voters and helped propel him to much success over his adversary.  Also, Harrison blamed Van Buren for the economic depression.  All of these factors along with many get out the vote campaigns including songs and other things trying to get people to vote Harrison and the Whigs came out on top of the election.  The final electoral count was 234-60 with an 80% of eligible voters turning out.  This was the largest turnout ever and showed a shift from the previous campaigns where campaigning really did not happen.  Click This link and this link to look at some ads from Harrison's campaign. Tomorrow I will have a post about the election of 1860 between Lincoln and Douglass.

The First Campaigns

The first contested election was in 1796 when Jefferson and Adams duked it out for the presidency.  This was a pretty heated campaign but, let's fast forward to the election of 1800. Adams was running for his second term, and Jefferson who Adams had defeated during the last campaign was also running. Another federalist Gov. Pinckney from South Carolina was running. Aaron Burr through various schemes was able to also secure many votes, especially in the north. He was also the first candidate to openly campaign for the office.  This ended in a very close election.  The Federalists had planned to have an elector not vote for Burr.  This plan did not end up working, and the electoral college was tied 73-73.  In the event of a tie, the house of representatives would decide the election with each state having one vote.  During the deadlock in the House Burr conducted a very secretive campaign where he tried to win the votes of the Congress. This ultimately proved unsuccessful, and on the 36th vote, Jefferson was elected president.  Because Burr came in second, he did become Vice President.  This lead to the 12th amendment in 1804 where the second place candidate no longer became vice president. There is an excellent song from the musical Hamilton about the 1800 election give it a listen here. This election leads to a lot of problems because the founders had not anticipated political parties. So the issue that came about in this election were not things that some people were prepared to face.  Burr's scheming to become president is also something that was new at the time, and many people were unaware of the many actions he took to try and gain the presidency.  This election was overall not very democratic, and the people really were not heavily involved.  The early process of American elections was mostly decided by the few people at the top.

The next election that I want to write about is the election of 1824 and the corrupt bargain.  The election of 1824 was mainly between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Although Jackson won the plurality of votes the electoral college was once again deadlocked between the two candidates. This meant that again the house had to decide the winner of the election. Having the support of Henry Clay one of the most influential congressmen would be crucial for either candidate to win the election.  He ended up supporting Adams but, this leads to many accusations from Jackson and his supporters that a corrupt bargain had occurred.  The charges were not wholly unsubstantiated but they were also not really proven.  Either way having the possibility of a bargain can still undermine the legitimacy of the election which is very harmful to the government as a whole.

The third election that I want to talk about is the 1828 election where again Jackson was running for president against the now incumbent John Quincy Adams.  Jackson's history as a military leader has already established him as someone who was closer to the people than someone like John Quincy Adams, and he had a received a plurality of the votes in the previous election even though he did not win.  This election would be the first election where the winner won because they won the popular vote. Unlike past elections where electors were not as faithful to the ballots of the people. More people were also able to vote in this election than ever before which significantly increased turnout.  Jackson won this election not because he had favor with all of the elites but because he was supported by the masses. Because most electors were chosen by the voters in this election having popular support was needed to win. Jackson used a variety of techniques including lots of campaigning.  This helped him win by a large margin of votes in the electoral college having 178 votes to Adams 83 votes.

Overall these elections show how the electoral college changed from what it was originally intended to be. Many of the delegates in the constitutional convention were concerned about having a direct democracy which is why they had the electoral college but with the changes to the system.  Appealing to the masses like Jackson did was the way to win and for the most part is today.  The electoral college is no longer what it was intended to be. Although some elements like giving smaller states a voice in choosing the executive are still present many elements that the founders wanted are no longer present. Instead of having electors vet the candidates themselves now the people have to vet the candidates.  Many of the founders did not want this because they believed that the people would not be able to do this because they could not get to know candidates very well.  If this system still existed campaigning as we know it would be totally different.  Much fewer people would have a direct hand in deciding who became president.  Now the process is closer to a popular vote but as we have seen in past elections the number of electors is still the most important thing as far as winning goes.  How you get those electors has changed quite a bit though.  

Reflection Post

I haven't done one of these yet so I thought that it could be good to do one. I think the thing that has surprised me for this project has been the depth of the information that I have been able to explore thus far.  I feel that this project has been a very unique opportunity for me to explore the topics that I have been reading about more in-depth than some of the things that I would be reading during the school year. For example, during this project, my mentor provides me with lots of sources to read giving me different perspectives.  I am also reading a lot more than I was during the school year. For my history and English classes, we only read one book or document at a time and the nightly reading was no more than 40 pages a night.  Because the project is the only thing that I am working on I am able to read a lot more than that.  Also,  I am reading things that I find interesting to read which makes things easier to read quickly.  I think the biggest challenge for me so far has been being able to fully understand all of the things that I have learned about.  For example, when learning about Cromwell and the Glorious Revolution there are many factors at play and many parties involved which complicates things.  My mentor has been very helpful though in explaining some of these complicated topics to me.  He is able to boil down a lot of things in a way that I can understand it. I think that this project is helping me grow as a more independent learner.  I am setting all of my own deadlines and am responsible for making sure that I get my work done.  This project is really allowing me to be a more responsible and timely student.  Overall I am really enjoying the project so far and I hope that the second half goes as well as the first half.  Look out for some blog posts tomorrow.

George Washington and the Electoral College

Now that I am done with my AP testing I can get back to writing blog posts and continue reading.  Today and last week I read several essays and Papers.  About the beginnings of American democracy.    
The first thing I read is a chapter from Ellis about George Washington.  During the Ameican Revolution, Washington was the de facto leader of the United States, and many people expected him to somehow take over when the war was done.  The pensions that were offered to the army were not able to funded by the Congress, and this angered many of the soldiers.  A conspiracy was made that would have the army lead by Washington take over the continental congress. When Washington heard of this plot he did was horrified.  This inspired him to give his famous Newburgh Address after giving this it was clear that Washington was not like other leaders.  He had the opportunity to take power like Cromwell or Napoleon but, he stayed true to the revolution and its ideals.  That is what separates Washington from these other leaders he was able to restrain himself and not take more power.   This is what makes him such a unique figure throughout history.  Ellis writes about how instead of making himself critical to the revolution Washington made the ideals of revolution more important.  There was no one to stop Washington from taking absolute power other than himself.  He was able to recognize the importance of democracy and having a government of laws.  This is what makes him such a unique leader throughout history.  It is very rare that someone is given the opportunity to take so much power and does not take it.
The next step for the new American democracy was creating a way to elect the president.  This process was long and arduous.  Much discussion was centered around to create a system that would work fairly for all the states.  The founders were also worried about direct democracy because they did not believe that the people could be trusted entirely to make the best decision.  This is how they eventually came to create the electoral college process that we know today.  It is clear that the other existing examples of democracy greatly influenced this new system. From the reading in Slonin it is clear that the system was considered not considered perfect but they did think it was very good.  A lot of people have wanted to change this system as there have been over 700 attempted amendments since the electoral college was created.  Overall a system was created that although not perfect was able to make people at the constitutional convention satisfied for the most part.  The electoral college is still under scrutiny though especially in recent elections where two presidents have lost the popular vote but won the election. Maybe people are more capable than they were back in the 1780s and won't make mistakes like founders thought they would.  A lot could still happen with this system in coming years.
My next blog post will be about the ratification debates.  

Project Update

So far in my studies, I have started an in-depth exploration of how leaders throughout time have used their voice to influence people.  From reading the Rhetorical Presidency to Plutarch to Cromwell. This has given me insight on what the founders would have thought about when they create a new country based on principles of democracy back in the late 1700s. For the rest of this week except for my AP tests I will be diving into founders ideas about the president as a communicator and what role they thought they thought the president should have. This will help me begin to answer the first part of my essential question, "How has the role of the president as a communicator changed over time."  I will be able to see how the founders thought the president should act and behave as I move forward I will begin to see these changes and the causes behind them. The second part of my essential question is much broader and I think is more difficult to answer "why do people believe some things and not others?". I think that I have seen examples of people being believed over others like people trusting Alcibiades over Nikas but, the reason as to why people would believe Alcibiades is still unclear.  I think it is more than him simply being the most persuasive person in all of Greece. Hopefully, as continue with my project I will get closer to answering this question.  

Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil Wars

The past couple of days except for an AP test I have been studying Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil Wars. These are relevant to my study of political communication because the founders would have looked at Cromwell as an example of a leader in an attempt at democracy.  Cromwell fed up with the king for two reasons.  The first is that he married a Catholic and Cromwell saw this as betraying the church of England.  The second reason is that the king had dissolved parliament several times and only recalled them when he needed money to fight a war against Scotland.  After trying to restrain the king several times with new laws that gave parliament more power. Civil war eventually broke out in England. There were many battles here but eventually, Cromwell's new model army defeated the Royalists.  After capturing King Charles I he was put on trial and the put to death by parliament.  Several ineffective parliaments ruled for a short period of time before Cromwell took the title of Lord protector for 5 years. This was basically the position of King in everything but name. As Lord Protector, he waged war against the Catholics and committed genocide against the Irish along the way. After he died his son took power but, was overthrown by Charles II. He was Catholic this lead the Protestants to invite William of Orange (from the Netherlands) to invade England. After all of this William was eventually defeated. This is a very confusing chain of events and I recommend a couple videos that can help you make a little more sense out of everything.

Why would all of this be relevant to the founders of the United States? Great question.  First of all, this is an example of a powerful executive figure not listening to his legislative body.  It is also an example of populists like Cromwell being able to take control and subverting many laws.  These events are also characterized by complicated rules of succession.  Seeing as all these events were only 150 years old when the founders were writing the constitution these events were all kept in mind. They wanted to make sure there could sufficient checks on the power of the executive or king so they did not end up with problems like England.  That is part of the reason why they were so careful in crafting the office of the executive.  This also crafted their ideas about who should be able to declare wars.  Overall these events heavily influenced many of the founder's ideas about good ways to run their new government.  I'll be exploring more about the founders specifically later in the week. Here is a fun video to watch from Monty Python. 

Alcibiades

On Friday after finishing up my blog post I read Plutarch and Thucydides both of them talk about Alcibiades and his life.  If you want to watch a fun video about Alcibiades this video does a pretty good job of summarizing his life with some humor added.  If you don't know Alcibiades was an Athenian general and was regarded as one of the most persuasive people in all of Greece. Plutarch said that as a child he convinced the teacher to stop having kids learn the flute. As an adult, he first convinced Athens to go to war in Sicily and fail miserably.  Then to avoid trial he worked for the king of Sparta but he had to leave after he had a child with the queen making him no longer welcome in Sparta. After leaving Sparta he went to Athens where again he served as an advisor.  Then he helped to remove the Athenian democracy an install an Oligarchy of 400 so that he would not be put on trial.    The Athenian army did not like the plot to overthrow democracy and got rid of their generals involved in the plot. They then voted on new generals these generals recommended that Alcibiades was made a general and after a speech, he was elected general by the army.  He was quite successful as a general and had many victories against the enemies of Athens. He returned to Athens as a victor but after a defeat, he was exiled.  The last record of his life is that he tried to give advice to an Athenian fleet but, the fleet did not take his advice and were crushed.  No one his really sure how he died but the descrpition that Plutarch gives is interesting,

"The party sent to kill him did not dare to enter his house, but surrounded it and set it on fire. 3 When Alcibiades was aware of this, he gathered together  p115 most of the garments and bedding in the house and cast them on the fire. Then, wrapping his cloak about his left arm, and drawing his sword with his right, he dashed out, unscathed by the fire, before the garments were in flames, and scattered the Barbarians, who ran at the mere sight of him. Not a man stood ground against him, or came to close quarters with him, but all held aloof and shot him with javelins and arrows. 4 Thus he fell"

         Alcibiades would pose an interesting question to the founding fathers because they would have wanted to protect against people like him from destroying their democracy. For them, he is an example of a demagogue that could help to bring down democracy.  Constraining the ability of one person to convince the masses was something that the founders were very concerned about.  A person like Alcibiades was the exact kind of person that the founders were trying to protect against when they were building a new democracy.  Even though Alcibiades may have been fulfilling the will of the people it is clear that the will of the people is not always best for the country this would make the founders weary to implement direct democracy like Athens.
     

The Rhetorical Presidency

For an initial understanding of presidential rhetoric, I read the Rhetorical Presidency by Jeff Tulis. In this book, Tulis describes the ways in which presidents have used rhetoric since the founding of the country.   He breaks down the way presidents have used rhetoric into the different categories.  First is the Old Way from 1789-1900, the Middle Way from 1900-1913, and the New Way 1913-today. 

The Old Way of presidential rhetoric is much different from what we know today.  In the creation of the constitution, the founders were very concerned with demagogues taking power. For this reason, they wanted to policies in place that did not allow for direct democracy. Generally, the president was constrained as to not have too much power because of the fears surrounding demagoguery.  Policy recommendations were also written Presidents of the 18th and 19th centuries were not willing to use speeches to move forward their policies.   The speeches that they gave were most often patriotic in nature or were directed at dignitaries.   Tulis cites Lincoln as one example of this. For most of his speeches he avoided talking about specific policy and for things like war justification he did it after the fact.  Even though was a great speaker he did not use speeches to move forward policy goals like presidents do today. Andrew Johnson did attempt a modern style with his swing around the circle.  He made speeches all across the country and tried to gain support throughout the North.  This campaign was a total failure and was also seen as something that presidents should not do.  

Teddy Roosevelt started the middle way mainly with Hepburn act here because his party did not support the bill for this reason he had to make some popular appeals in order to get the bill through. He saw this as a means to end by avoiding class warfare he thought could come if the bill was not passed. 

The new way differs because the President makes many more public appeals.  Mainly through policy speeches and through visionary speeches. These policy speeches are used to outline the president's specific policies and ideas while the visionary speeches are more used to outline what the overall goal of the president is.  Presidents also run into problems with their rhetoric in the new way.  Both Reagan and Wilson made different arguments to the public than they did to the legislatures.  Presidents like Regan used Rhetoric to push policy over the heads of the Congress. Some presidents like George HW Bush have been less successful with their rhetoric but, overall the presidents of the 20th and 21st century have used speech as a tool much more than their predecessors. 

This book was a great read for learning about the transformation of how presidents have used the powers in their office over time. I think that this will give me a good understanding for the rest of my project about how and why presidents communicate the way that they do.

Pre-Project Post

This project is something that I am really excited to start undertaking. I have always had an interest in political science and I have been able to take a couple of classes where I learned about political science.  But I have never been able to go super in depth.  This project will allow me to do that. I hope that this project will allow me to learn things about the way people think and how that affects the choice they make. My essential question for this project is How has the role of the president as a communicator changed over time and why do people believe some things and not others? Hopefully, I will begin to answer this question over the course of my project. During this project, I will be updating my blog daily talking about what I have been discussing during the day with my mentor Dr. Grynaviski. I will mostly be working from the orange library or home during this project because my mentor is located in Detroit.