(Page 3 of 48) - Gauging Presidential Leadership: What He Says, and How He Says It authored by Cunion, William.

sell. We need to be able to track whether the president is attempting to overcome

resistance in the speech, or demonstrating his support for a position already attractive to

the public. The following list of rhetorical methods or strategies should be more

prominent when the president is trying to lead public opinion than when he is following:

1) Mentioning actual opposition to or fears of his policies among ordinary
citizens. This dilutes the president’s message and will probably be done
only when public opposition is sufficiently strong or widely recognized
that to ignore it would make him appear unresponsive or out of touch.
This element would presumably be followed by an effort to assuage the
fears or concerns behind the opposition. (“I know that many people are
worried about how this change will affect them...”)

2) Mentioning that the policies will actually have some costs to the public.
This, too, dilutes the message, and will be done only when there are such
obvious costs that to ignore them would cause the president to appear
unconcerned or overlooking reality. (“Higher heating oil prices will make
it harder to keep our homes as warm as we are used to...”)

3) Mentioning objections to his policies. Again, including such points has
rhetorical costs, and is likely to occur only when an obvious objection
needs to be answered. (“Some say that executing a juvenile is too
harsh...”) Note that mentioning opposition from elites – from members of
the other party, or leaders of interest groups, for example – does not count
here as mentioning an objection, unless a substantive reason for the
opposition is cited. The concept is mentioning a possible or alleged
reason for not adopting the president’s policy.

4) Citing support for a policy, or for some claims on its behalf, by experts.
Typically, presidents would rather have the audience agreeing with him on
the basis of their own beliefs or experience. When the president’s major
claims do not seem self-evident, an appeal to experts plays a larger role.
(“The prestigious Brookings Institution has endorsed my plan...”)

5) Providing extensive arguments, examples, or evidence to support the
main causal claims for the president’s policies – that is, to show that it
will actually yield the promised benefits. To spell out such arguments at
length is not useful if the public habitually takes the causal claim for
granted, so it will occur primarily where they need to be convinced.

Communication researchers agree that two-sided refutational messages are the most persuasive (Stiff

1994, Lucas 1986, Perloff 1993). Petty and Wegener (1998, 355) note that this rhetorical strategy is
particularly effective with better educated individuals, who are more likely to be aware of
counterarguments. I do not address this in the text because my argument has nothing to do with the success
of the president’s attempts to persuade. Nevertheless, since his speechwriters are undoubtedly aware of
such research, it seems likely that they would employ such techniques in crafting the president’s message.