Does reliance on presidential rhetoric to define the national interest contribute to demagoguery and policy overreaction, or does it facilitate deliberation and promote policy coherence? Please answer this question with reference to Tulis’s arguments and a major United State presidential address (e.g., as provided in the assigned readings). (US Politics).
Length: 8 pages (2537 Words)
A president draws upon three areas of power availed to him by virtue of occupancy of the office of the president. These powers are constitutional powers, political powers as head of the party, and power over public opinion. Apart from the descriptive and institutionalized study of politics, the third dimension of presidential power holds the locus of presidential power. Through public opinion, the president has a window to influence policy through the persuasion of the public. Presidents often utilize presidential speeches as their primary tools of advancing rhetoric. Rhetoric has defined the office of the president in recent years, with the function of the office shifting from administrative and constitutional, to executive and rhetorical. Tulis noted that the presidency required a direct appeal to the public, with the American people increasingly demanding for popular representation from the white house. The president is expected to address the public directly in explaining policy initiatives and raising support for proposed policy changes. In this sense, rhetoric plays a significant role in the definition of the modern presidency, and in extension, policy. Infiltration of rhetoric into the role of the president, however, has led to a reduction in the substance of presidential addresses, with recent presidential addresses bearing a hint of monotony about the precedents set
* Once your purchase is processed by paypal you will be redirected back to this page and you'll have the option to download the paper. We'll also send the paper to your paypal email address as proof of purchase.Download Paper