( 1987). ⁵ In that book, Tulis argued that the twentieth-century "rhetorical
presidency" represents a fundamental departure from the nineteenth-century
constitutional presidency that had been established by the founding fathers.
The founders had sought to prevent demagoguery and preserve representative
government through an independent executive and separation of powers.
Nineteenth-century official presidential rhetoric reflected the original consti-
tutional theory in two major ways: (1) policy speech was to be communicated
to Congress and, beginning with Jefferson at least, in writing; and (2) rhetoric
directed primarily to the people, such as inaugural addresses and proclama-
tions, was to emphasize general constitutional principles and avoid specific
policy proposals. Unofficial nineteenth-century presidential rhetoric was also
largely consistent with these original proscriptions; such speeches were gener-
ally few in number and limited to vague, innocuous utterances that avoided
specific policies or partisan debates. The only nineteenth-century president to
deviate from these rhetorical norms, according to Tulis, was Andrew Johnson,
whose transgression of accepted norms produced an impeachment charge of
improper rhetoric and thus stands as the exception that proves the rule.

In Tulis's telling, the pivotal figure in the transformation from the "old way"
of the nineteenth century to the "new way" of the twentieth century was
Woodrow Wilson. Although Theodore Roosevelt did make popular appeals,
Tulis argues they were largely designed to shore up the old way, to forestall
demagoguery, and to sustain representative deliberation. It was Wilson, in
Tulis's telling, who recast the rhetorical foundations of the presidency and
thus permanently altered the character of the American political system.

Tulis's distinction between the old way and the new way is important. The
difference between George Washington's and Bill Clinton's understanding of
presidential leadership is obviously enormous. And yet the dichotomy be-
tween a nineteenth-century old way and a twentieth-century new way can
have the unfortunate consequence of flattening nineteenth-century presiden-
tial history. Throughout most of the nineteenth century, the nature of presi-
dential power and authority was characterized not by settled, accepted norms
but by fierce partisan contestation over the appropriate sources and forms of
presidential leadership. Although none of the contributors to this book dis-
pute the notion that presidential modes of popular communication look
radically different today than they did in 1787 or even 1887, they do indicate
that the historical transition is less abrupt and more complex and multi-
faceted than Tulis originally suggested.

The diversity in understandings of presidential power is evident from the
moment the presidential office was created. The leading framers at the Consti-
tutional Convention, as Jack Rakove has recently emphasized, "thought about

-2-