Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Most studies of presidential power assume that legitimacy is derived from the Constitution. This essay argues that presidents can become authors of their own legitimacy, whether understood in normative or behavioral terms. Specifically, the thesis is that presidential assertions of power, cloaked in an antipower rhetoric which formally honors the dominant values of the culture, have created an American state that has served as an extraconstitutional source of presidential legitimacy. It is widely believed that American constitutionalism undermined the state by destroying sovereignty. Lincoln's interpretation and use of the war power, however, denned a supreme national authority located in the presidency. In addition, his Gettysburg Address provided a paradigmatic metaphor for concealing presidential power rhetorically. Subsequent presidents have taken advantage of both effects by attempting to assert power as revolutionary principle. Linguistically, these concealments are reflected in tropes which constitute legitimizing defenses for exercise of extraordinary power.
1. Corwin, Edward S., The President: Office and Powers (New York: New York University Press, 1940)Google Scholar, and Neustadt, Richard E., Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960)Google Scholar.
2. In his preface, Corwin states, “The central theme of the work is power and its development — the power of the President under the Constitution” President (p. vii). Cf. Neustadt, : “My theme is personal power and its politics: what it is, how to get it, how to keep it, how to lose it” Presidential Power (p. v).Google Scholar See also p. 8.
3. Corwin, , President, pp. vii, 126–36, 176–89, and passim.Google Scholar Corwin, it should be noted, was alarmed at the presidential aggrandizement involved in this process.
4. Neustadt, , Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership from FDR to Carter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980), pp. 164–65, 167.Google Scholar
5. Especially useful critiques are: Sperlich, Peter W., “Bargaining and Overload: An Essay on Presidential Power,” in Perspectives on the Presidency, ed. Wildavsky, Aar (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1975), pp. 406–30;Google ScholarHart, John, “Presidential Power Revisited,” Political Studies 25 (03 1977): 48–61;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCronin, Thomas, “Presidential Power Revised and Reappraised,” Western Political Quarter 32 (12 1979): 381–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a discussion of these and other related works, see Bailey, Harry A. Jr., “Neustadt's Thesis Revisited,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 11 (Summer 1981): 351–57.Google Scholar See also, Hoekstra, Douglas J., “Presidential Power and Presidential Purpose,” Review of Politics 47 (10 1985): 566–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This critique of presidential studies also focuses on legitimacy, arguing that “the separation of normative issues from the study of presidential practice seem[s] untrue to the nature of the office itself,” (p. 584).
6. Pious, Richard M., The American Presidency (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1979)Google Scholar.
7. Ibid., p. 17.
8. Ibid., p. 50.
9. Pious does not develop this perspective, however. See Bailey, , “Neustadt's Thesis Revisited,” p. 355.Google Scholar
10. In part, this is proposed in response to the call for development of theories on the nature and ethos of presidential rhetoric. See Windt, Theodore Otto Jr., “Presidential Rhetoric: Definition of a Field of Study,” Presidential Studies Quarter 16 (Winter 1986): 108–109.Google Scholar
11. There is a considerable literature that reflects this point of view, including works on the absence of socialism, the peculiarities of the American class structure, the importance of the frontier, the impact of federalism, the effects of pluralism, and so forth. I will mention only a recent example: Huntington, Samuel P., American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 1981), pp. 34–36.Google Scholar
12. Huntington also illustrates this point. His theory of American politics as being shaped by periods of “creedal passion” makes no mention of the Civil War, even though it would seem to qualify as such a period.
13. Wood, Gordon S., The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1969), pp. 344–46;Google Scholar and Adams, Rudolph G., Political Ideas of the American Revolution, 3rd ed. (New York: Barnes a Noble, Inc., 1958), chap. 8.Google Scholar
14. Wood, , American Republic, p. 351.Google Scholar
15. Ibid., pp. 527–28.
16. Ibid., pp. 530–31.
17. Ibid., p. 533.
18. I have borrowed this, as well as other ideas about the state, from Wolin, Sheldon S., “The Idea of the State in America,” The Problem of Authority in America, ed. Diggins, John P. and Kahn, Mark E. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981), pp. 41–59.Google Scholar
19. Rossiter, Clinton, ed., The Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library, 1961), No. 23, p. 153.Google Scholar
20. For a summary of Lincoln's dictatorial uses of power see Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Imperial Presidency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1973), p 58–59;Google Scholar and Pious, , American Presidency, pp. 57–59.Google Scholar
21. “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge, MA: The MIT 1985), p. 5.Google Scholar In this critique of Hans Kelsen and other legal theorists, originally published in 1922, Schmitt argues that the nature of sovereign power precludes it from being subject to law all the time.
22. Basler, Roy P. et al. , eds., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953–1955), 4:192, 204.Google Scholar
23. Ibid., 7:301; 5:388; 7:282.
24. Anderson, Dwight G., Abraham Lincoln: The Questfor Immortality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), pp. 188–90.Google Scholar For an altogether different view of Lincoln's rhetoric, see Tulis, Jeffrey K., The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 79–83.Google Scholar This important book offers genuinely new perspectives on the subject, but fails to appreciate Lincoln's contributions to the “layered text” of presidential history. I would argue that Lincoln's refoundation of the Constitution portends the rise of the “rhetorical presidency.”
25. Basler, , Abraham Lincoln, 4:240.Google Scholar
26. Huntington, , The Promise, p. 75.Google Scholar
27. Burke, Kenneth, A Grammar of Motives (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1945), p. 506.Google Scholar Burke's explication of “four master tropes” (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony) is widely used by contemporary theorists.
28. White, Hayden, Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1978), p. 78.Google Scholar
29. Geertz, Clifford, “Ideology as a Cultural System,” Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1964), p. 59.Google Scholar The difficulties of defining metaphor are discussed by Eco, Umberto, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (London: The Macmillan Press, 1979), pp. 101–103, 127–29.Google Scholar
30. Bloom, Harold, “The Breaking of Form,” Deconstruction and Criticism, ed. Hartman, Geoffrey H. (New York: Seabury Press, 1979), pp. 8–11.Google Scholar See also Bloom's, Agon: Towards a Theory of Revisionism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar, and his The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford Univers Press, 1973).Google Scholar
31. Lentricchia, Frank, “Editor's Forward” in Bloom, The Breaking of Vessels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), p. x.Google Scholar
32. On deconstruction, see Harari, Josu V., ed., Textual Strategies: Perspectives Post-Structural Criticism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979);Google Scholar Hartman, Deco struction and Criticism; Said, Edward W., The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983);Google ScholarLeitch, Vincent B., Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
33. One effect of the Gettysburg Address was to obliterate the meaning of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. See Wills, Garry, Inventing America: Jefferson' Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), p. xiv.Google Scholar
34. Barber, James David, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985)Google Scholar, overlooks the possible influence of a president's predecessors in shaping his character.
35. Wilson, Woodrow, The Messages and Papers of Woodrow Wilson, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1924), 1:433, 2:645.Google Scholar On Wilson, , I have borrowed from Michael Paul Rogin, “The King's Two Bodies: Lincoln, Wilson, Nixon, and Presidential Self-Sacrifice” in “Ronald Reagan,” the Movie and Other Episodes in Political Demonology (Berkeley: University of California, 1987), pp. 81–115.Google Scholar
36. Wilson, , Messages, 2: 645.Google Scholar
37. Wilson, , Constitutional Government in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1908), p. 67;Google ScholarWilson, , Congressional Government (Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press, 1885), p. 209.Google Scholar
38. Wilson, , The New Freedom, reprint ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), 49–53.Google Scholar
39. Wilson, , War and Peace: The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1925–1927), 1: 16.Google Scholar
40. Rosenman, Samuel I., ed., The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 13 vols. (New York: Random House, 1932–1950), 1: 648.Google Scholar
41. Ibid., 10: 194.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., 5: 235–6.
44. Ibid., 12: 241.
45. Anderson, , Lincoln, pp. 217–18.Google Scholar Harold Bloom's “anxiety of influence” theme has been developed ably by Leuchtenburg, William E., In the Shadow of FDR: From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, rev. ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
46. Fairlie, Henry, The Kennedy Promise: The Politics of Expectation (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973).Google Scholar
47. See Fitzgerald, Frances, Fire in the Lake (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972), p. 233;Google Scholar and Schlesinger, , The Imperial Presidency, p. 252.Google Scholar
48. Carter's ineffectual rhetoric is considered by Ceasar, James W., Thurow, Glen E., Tulis, Jeffrey, and Bessette, Joseph M., “The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency,” Rethinking the Presidency, ed. Cronin, Thomas E. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co,. 1982), pp. 233–53;Google Scholar and by Hahn, Dan F., “Flailing the Profligate: Carter's Energy Sermon of 1979,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 10 (Fall 1980): 583–87.Google Scholar
49. See Hartman, Geoffrey, ed., Bitburg in Moral and Political Perspective (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986), pp. 253–36, pp. 258–62.Google Scholar
50. Schaar, John H., Legitimacy in the Modern State (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1981), pp. 19–23.Google Scholar
51. This conclusion parallels the synthesis of Corwin and Neustadt proposed by Tatalovich, Raymond and Daynes, Byron W., “Toward a Paradigm to Explain Presidential Power,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 9 (Fall 1979): 428–41.Google Scholar
52. Thomas Hobbes as quoted by Wolin, Sheldon S., Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1960), p. 246.Google Scholar The discussion of Hobbes borrows from Wolin, pp. 246–60, and from Cranston, Maurice, “From Legitimism to Legitimacy,” Legitimacy/Légitmité, ed. Moulakis, Athanasios (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985), pp. 36–43.Google Scholar Also see Rogin, : “Hobbes derived political authority from consent in order not to obligate the sovereign but to free him” “Ronald Reagan,” (p. 298).Google Scholar
53. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), the Supreme Court gave legal sanction to the president as Hobbesian sovereign in foreign affairs: “the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representaive of the nation.” For historical perspective on this decision and its relationship to domestic politics, see Lafeber, Walter, “The Constitution and the United States Foreign Policy: An Interpretation,” Journal of American History 74 (12 1987): 695–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Edwards, George C. III, The Public Presidency: The Pursuit of Popular Support (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), pp. 51–63.Google Scholar
55. Lowi, Theodore J., The Personal President: Power Invested, Promise Unfulfilled (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), p. 11, p. 178.Google Scholar
56. Ceasar, , Thurow, , Tulis, , and Bessette, note that “increasingly … speaking is governing” “Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency,” p. 234).Google Scholar
