Worries about “the rhetorical presidency” ultimately concern the danger of presidential demagoguery. As such, they echo an important theme of the Founders, who erected several barriers to the emergence of the president as demagogue in chief. In the ancient sources on which the Founders partly drew, the worry was the popular or pseudo‐popular leader who seizes on widespread envies, fears, or hopes in the service of his political career—in contrast to the statesman, who pursues the public good and is, (...) therefore, less interested in how to gain office than in how to use it. Later iterations emphasized the “superstitious,” “prejudiced,” or ideological nature of demagogic appeals. When Woodrow Wilson proposed that the president should seize the public‐policy initiative in the name of the people, he sought to insulate the presidency from charges of demagoguery by arguing that no leader who spoke falsely on behalf of the people could expect to win the office. True adepts of the “progress” of public opinion, hence of the public good, are non‐demagogic by definition. Although one is hard pressed to find an American president who can unambiguously be called demagogic, one does find demagoguery among presidential candidates, especially during their campaigns for party nomination. (shrink)

This is a expository and critical review of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. 's last book, War and the American Presidency. The book collects and focuses recent writings of Arthur Schlesinger on the themes of its title. In its short Foreword and seven concise essays, the book aims to explore, in some contrast with the genre of “instant history,” the relationship between President George W. Bush’s Iraq adventure and the national past. This aim and the present work are deserving of (...) wide attention, both because of the contemporary need to deal with the extended war in Iraq and because Americans, in particular, need to attend to their own history, if we are to avoid past mistakes and make the best use of our ongoing political traditions and institutions. In order to know better where we might go in the future, we need an adequate picture of where we have been in the past. Schlesinger invites us to debate the war, the Presidency, and their relation to the American past. (shrink)

The election of Barack H. Obama as President of the United States was a significant event in the social and political history of the United States. His election as the first non-white male President has been seen as a sign of the changing racial attitudes of white Americans. Nonetheless, the specter of race and racism haunts his presidency. As the first African American president, he has to show the black community that he has their social, political, and economic (...) interests on his public policy agenda. On the other hand, he cannot appear to be to overtly pro-black without bruising white racial sensibilities. In order to walk this fine line, President Obama has taken a colorblind approach to public policies. He claims that his color-blind public policies will help to uplift all citizens regardless of race, creed, or national origin. Important for this discussion is the claim that race need not be a factor in public policies. There are some doubts about this claim given the history of anti-black racism in the United States. It is argued, herein, that color or race conscious policies are needed to address some of the social and economic problems that besiege the black community. This article utilizes a pragmatic account of race to illustrate why colorblindness in public policies takes an ahistorical and decontextualized view of race and in the long term will hurt the social and economic standing of African Americans in the move to a more perfect union. (shrink)

More than half of all pre‐twentieth century presidents communicated with the public on policy matters. Some gave speeches or wrote public letters and messages, while others utilized the façade of a presidential newspaper. The partisan affiliations of the presidents who communicated with the public suggest that even before the full articulation of the concept of the “rhetorical” presidency by Woodrow Wilson, there was underlying disagreement among American political leaders about the proper role of the public in influencing public (...) policy—and of the role of the president in influencing public opinion. (shrink)

The Trump presidency has been remarkable in its attacks on many mainstream institutions. It has tapped populist sentiment that reflects little confidence in the key decision-making centers in American society. Higher education has not escaped this attack. Indeed, criticism of the academy has gone well beyond the debated policies of affirmative action and political correctness to the very status of expert knowledge itself, questioning what is legitimate knowledge. Claims of “false data” and “alternative facts” parade in the public (...) arena without the benefit of reasoned scholarship that might separate fact from fiction. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the attack on science, particularly scientific research focusing on environmental issues and climate change. Nonetheless, a small number of academicians—supposed arbiters of truth—advocate for Trump. How does one explain this apparent anomaly? Why would scholars support a president and populist movement that attack the very foundations of their professional life: knowledge and expertise? I have identified 103 such professors who offer their public support of Trump through blogs, essays, op-ed pieces, public lectures, tweets, YouTube videos, and even a couple of trade books. These are public intellectuals who intervene beyond the classroom and laboratory to promote a political agenda that is supportive of Trump. They are public advocates for Trump: academic Trumpists. Who are these individuals? Where do they teach? What do they teach? What kinds of connections external to the academy do they cultivate? How do they justify their support of Trump? This article offers some answers to these questions. It draws inspiration from Bourdieu’s field analysis of the politics of higher education and the sociology of conservative intellectuals. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:President’s Council on BioethicsEdmund D. Pellegrino (bio) and F. Daniel Davis (bio)Approximately two weeks before what was to have been its final meeting, the White House dissolved the President’s Council on Bioethics by terminating the appointments of its 18 members. The letters of dismissal, dated 10 June 2009, informed the members that their service on the Council would end with the close of business the next day.The Council’s term (...) was set to expire on 30 September 2009. After President Obama’s election in November and during the transition, we were advised to proceed on the assumption that the Council would be permitted to cease on that date. Reasons for the abrupt move to disband the Council are unknown. We have accepted the fact that we Council members served at the pleasure of the President and that he simply exercised his rightful prerogative. No explanation is therefore required.Some observers have speculated that the action was retaliatory. They related to the fact that several members of the Council disagreed with the President’s stem cell policy in a signed statement published in the Hastings Center’s Bioethics Forum. Others have speculated that the move was pre-emptive. At its final meeting, scheduled for 25–26 June, the Council was set to sign-off on two of its final publications. One was a comprehensive report on the ethics of organ transplantation, and the other a white paper entitled Health Care and the Common Good. The aim was immediately to release the latter as a contribution to the intensifying debate about health care reform. Health Care and the Common Good could well have aided rather than impeded the President’s drive to better control health care costs and achieve universal coverage. The Council report attempted to ground both goals in the ethical framework of, as the title indicates, the common good of all Americans.In his letter terminating the members’ appointments, Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel Don Gips said that the President “recognizes the values of having a commission of experts in bioethical issues to provide objective and non-ideological bioethics advice to his administration.” Gips went on to say that the President is “currently rethinking the purposes and goals of such a bioethics commission, and is carefully considering a revitalized mission and mandate.” And, [End Page 309] responding to media enquiries, White House press officer Reid Cherlin explained that the President’s Council was terminated because it was a “philosophically leaning advisory group” and, according to a New York Times account by Nicholas Wade, “because it favored discussion over developing a shared consensus.” As for the ultimate outcome of the President’s “rethinking,” Cherlin indicated that President Obama will appoint a new commission with the mandate of offering “practical policy options” in bioethics.In the light of our experiences with the Council, we leave it with hopes that certain questions of national importance will be addressed. In light of the nature of federal advisory commissions, what is or are the proper roles of a national bioethics commission? If the aim is to provide advice and counsel to the President or, perhaps to the U. S. Congress, is that advice best rendered as a group consensus or as an in-depth exploration of the inevitably conflicting ethical perspectives on a given issue? How should such a commission be constituted—with what sorts of individuals? And what is the nature of the expertise that they individually and collectively bring to the commission’s functions? If the commission is to promote public debate and discussion, how exactly should it go about that task? And how is the efficacy of a commission to be assessed? Such questions inevitably lead us deep into contested territory, as the experience of this Council has shown: into the intersections of politics, religion, and science and into the relations between practice and theory—between policy and what some seem to deride as “philosophy.” Indeed, policy without an underlying philosophy is an edifice without a foundation; philosophy without policy is a foundation without an edifice.At the last meeting of the Council in March 2009, we launched a discussion of these questions with the... (shrink)

In this essay, I focus on the initial reaction of the then leadership of the Academy of Management to President Trump’s travel ban issued in January 2017. By viewing the travel ban in purely administrative terms, AOM leadership framed it as an example of “political speech”, on which they were organizationally barred to take a public stand. I subject this view to critical assessment, arguing that the travel ban had a distinct moral character, which was antithetical to scholarly values. Τhe (...) travel ban, I suggest, should be viewed as a non-prototypical case of political speech, which required AOM leadership to flexibly adapt existing rules in situ: to imaginatively frame the travel ban in order to undertake responsible action. Accordingly, the early 2017 AOM rules about political speech should be seen not as recipes-for-action but as reminders-for-action, thus allowing an imaginative reframing. Finally, exploring the notion of moral imagination, I distinguish between “disclosive” and “incremental” moral imagination and responsibility, and suggest that AOM leadership engaged mainly in the latter. (shrink)

Presidential rhetoric can matter immensely in moments of national crisis, and even during times of less melodrama. But the possibilities for rhetorical impact are slipping away from American presidents. In light of the multiplication of presidential spokespeople, commentators, on‐line editors, and audiences, and the relative intimacy of other personalities viewed by those audiences, one might posit that “presidential speech,” as described and analyzed by Tulis, is hurtling toward its demise. Tulis’s important thesis may therefore need some serious updating.

This notice serves to identify and correct the following inaccuracies in article Tsoukas Leadership, the Academy of Management, and President Trump’s Travel Ban: A Case Study in Moral Imagination published online on 26 July 2018.

This article revisits Jeffrey Tulis’s The Rhetorical Presidency in the age of Trump, discussing the debates to which it originally responded, its core thesis and empirical evidence, as well as its impact on political science in the last three decades. The article’s second half turns to a recent critique of Tulis’s thesis by Ann C. Pluta, which manifests many of the misunderstandings that have persisted since The Rhetorical Presidency’s original publication. Habits of thought revealed in Pluta’s misunderstandings, I (...) argue, are emblematic of the political culture that is amenable to the simplistic yet politically effective appeals characteristic of rhetorical presidents like Donald Trump. Elements of the broader political-science world that are on display in Pluta’s article are symptomatic of political pathologies sustained and aggravated by the culture of the polity that political scientists inhabit and purport to study—the culture of the rhetorical presidency. (shrink)

Charles U. Zug, following Jeffrey Tulis’s The Rhetorical Presidency (1987), argues that the original design of the Constitution constrained presidents from cultivating a relationship with the American public. In reality, though, presidents are opportunistic politicians who always look for new ways to reach the public in order to gain political advantage and nurture their relationship with the people. In this effort they have often made use of new communication technologies, such that what may look like radical twentieth-century departures (...) from previous understandings of the constitutional place of the president are actually continuous with attempts by presidents from Washington forward to engage in what was—in line with contemporaneous understandings of political issues—persuasive communication designed to influence public policy. (shrink)

Many, including American citizens, and foreigners, are asking whether a convicted felon could be elected and serve as president of the US. The answer to their query is a resounding, yes. In spite of people’s bewilderment, there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent a convicted felon from occupying the Oval Office if fairly elected. Yet the more pressing question is: Should reasonable and fair-minded citizens vote for a convicted felon based solely on their partisan politics disregarding the (...) general welfare? This is not a factual question, but rather a question about good judgement in politics. Good judgment, however, is not only about virtuous or vicious character but also about who can deliver better outcomes for those affected by policies. (shrink)

Presidents of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) have frequently used their addresses to discuss major changes facing the USA and the world and the responsibilities of geographers. I investigate those addresses that raised questions about social relevance facing the scholarly community and society during times of economic depression, military conflict, and major social changes. Moral and ethical issues were also integral in some statements.

The Rhetorical Presidency is not, principally, a book about rhetoric or the presidency. Rather, rhetoric and the presidency are windows on the American constitutional order as a whole. Critics have greatly enhanced the historical narrative but have not undermined the principal historical and theoretical claims. Recent changes in the American polity are best understood as exacerbations of problems described in the book, rather than as fundamental alterations of our political world. Contemporary political pathologies can still (...) be diagnosed as a product of the contending imperatives of the new constitutional order that has been layered on top of the old one. And while problems may be attenuated by a creative melding of the old and new orders, they cannot be solved within the confines of American constitutionalism, as it has been traditionally understood. (shrink)

“Old Black Joe still picking cotton for your ribbons and bows. And everybody knows.” - Leonard Cohen, “Everybody Knows.” African-Americans and other minorities are suffering disproportionately duri...

For decades, presidents of the Association of American Geographers have written insightful columns in the AAG Newsletter. One of the most popular sections of the newsletter, these columns illustrate the changes and consistencies of geography over the past thirty-four years. They offer an insight into the past of the geography discipline and a broader perspective on the future. Previously inaccessible even to most professional geographers, the Presidential Columns will now be available in Presidential Musings from the Meridian: Reflections of (...) the Nature of Geography. (shrink)

Since their Puritan origins in the 17th century, American politicians have tended to speak in the language of divinely given morality. George W. Bush is not unique in his frequent references to the language of good and evil, just as he is not the first US politician to mangle the language.

The importance of the specifi relationship between the US and the EU is determined by the role they play in solving international problems. The purpose of the article is to study the impact of common and distinctive position in US and EU foreign policy on the development of their relations and ability to effectively solve the world’s problems. At the beginning of the XXI century relations between the US and the EU have been developing in various spheres of foreign policy. (...) The priorities were security cooperation, the fiht against international terrorism and the development of economic relations. US and EU are mutually benefiial and priority partners for each other. This is determined in the foreign policy instruments of the United States and the European Union. However, this does not preclude the existence in the United States and the European Union different approaches to solving international problems and competition between them. The biggest differences between the US and the EU are shown in approaches to the settlement of military conflcts, the fiht against global warming and the greenhouse effect. The largest component of competitive relations is manifested in the development of the Arctic region. The US seeks to engage the EU foreign policy implementation taking into account American interests. However, at the beginning of the XXI century the EU had its own foreign policy program. The EU has an unhappy tendency towards US methods of solving world problems and unilateral actions in the international arena. The bipolar system was dominated by bilateral cooperation between the US and individual states of the European Union, but during the presidency of Barack Obama, the United States prefer relations with European politicians who represent the agreed position of 28 EU member states. The US in implementing its foreign policy should take into account the position of individual states and the European Union as a whole entity. This affects the process of solving international problems. Despite the existence of contradictions in the relations of the United States and the European Union, cooperation will continue to contribute to this long-term relationship, similarities in approaches to building political and economic systems and similarities in mentality. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:News from the President’s Council on BioethicsF. Daniel Davis (bio) and Diane M. Gianelli (bio)As most readers of this column already know, the President's Council on Bioethics went through a major transition during the past year when Leon Kass—in October 2005—handed the chairman's gavel over to Georgetown University's Edmund Pellegrino. Dr. Kass has remained on the Council as a member.1When the gavel change took place, the Council's phone started (...) ringing. Everyone wanted to know the same thing: What topics would the Council take up this term? Dr. Pellegrino's answer was always the same: The Council's agenda would be established through a consultative process with the members themselves and with an eye to those problems and controversies in bioethics to which we, as a body, can make a contribution.Taking its cue from the list of potential topics suggested by members, the Council—over the course of the next several meetings—listened to experts on such topics as children and bioethics (with a focus on children in clinical research), organ transplantation, and that oft-cited-but-hard-to-define concept, "human dignity."The latter topic entered the arena of discussion because it is a concept that is cited frequently in the bioethics literature, and it is also one that has figured prominently in Council discussions and documents. Although the concept is widely invoked, there is no universal understanding of what it means, and it is not easy to encapsulate into a one-size-fits-all definition. Indeed, some critics maintain that appeals to human dignity are fig leaves used to camouflage unconvincing arguments. So between December 2005 and April 2006, the Council devoted several sessions to various perspectives on "human dignity: its meaning, its foundations, and its relevance to bioethics." After hearing from James Childress, Patricia Churchland, Daniel Sulmasy, and Paul Weithman2 on the topic, the Council decided to issue a volume of approximately 20 essays, some by Council members and others by scholars from a variety of relevant disciplines.3 The volume is expected to encompass a broad array of opinion on the topic of human dignity and is scheduled to be published next spring."Children" were also the focus of several sessions during the past year. The Council's last report addressed care giving for the elderly.4 After it was issued, several members suggested it was time to focus on the youngest members of [End Page 375] society. The challenge, of course, was to find a topic that was both timely and relevant—and one about which the Council was uniquely qualified to make a contribution. A number of experts in a variety of related fields testified before the Council about possible issues it could explore: newborn screening for genetic disorders; decision-making standards for those who lack capacity; ethical issues in neonatal and pediatric intensive care; pharmacology and psychiatric disorders in children; and children and clinical research. In addition, a number of groups and individuals involved in related topics met with staff to discuss their interests and concerns.This exploratory engagement with facets of the broad topic of children and bioethics led the Council to focus, more narrowly, on a cluster of issues concerning newborn screening for genetic disorders—a topic on which it is likely that the Council will issue a white paper, possibly by next summer. The stimulus for this particular focus has been the American College of Medical Genetics's recommendation that all newborns in the U.S. be screened for a panel of 29 disorders.5 Currently, each state decides for its residents which conditions are subject to mandated screening, so it is possible to get early diagnoses of treatable disorders in one geographical area but not in another. Proponents of screening find the federal approach to mandated screening more equitable. Potential ethical problems, however, exist with the proposal. Some want to ensure that newborns are screened only for treatable conditions on grounds that it would be too burdensome to discover one is carrying the gene for a late-onset disease that cannot be prevented. Others want to make sure that insurance coverage for individuals and their families is... (shrink)

The 1968 Monday Holiday Bill moved George Washington's Birthday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. During the late 1970s and 1980s, however, Presidents' Day emerged spontaneously, replacing Washington's Birthday, and establishing itself in school curricula and business holiday calendars. Because Presidents' Day has no definite content and reflects public preference, a new perspective on holiday commemoration is needed to understand it. Neither the conflict model of holidays, which stresses the manipulation of the masses by elites, nor the (...) commitment model of holidays, which stresses elites and masses sharing the same values, account for Presidents' Day's distinguishing features. Presidents' Day is an instance of abortive commemoration, deliberately designed to combine individual vacations with national holidays. Presidents' Day articulates the de-centering of tradition, waning of affect, confusion, and fragmentation of late twentieth-century American culture. (shrink)

The report of the President's Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, addresses the central ethical, political, and policy issue in human embryonic stem cell research: the moral status of extracorporeal human embryos. The Council members were in sharp disagreement on this issue and essentially failed to adequately engage and respectfully acknowledge each others' deepest moral concerns, despite their stated commitment to do so. This essay provides a detailed critique of the two extreme views on the Council (i.e., embryos (...) have full moral status or they have none at all) and then gives theoretical grounding for our judgment about the intermediate moral status of embryos. It also supplies an account of how to address profound moral disagreements in the public arena, especially by way of constructing a middle ground that deliberately pays sincere respect to the views of those with whom it has deep disagreements. (shrink)

Throughout the 2016 US presidential election, pundits repeatedly described Donald Trump as a performance artist and his campaign as performance art. Meanwhile, his alt-right supporters were mounting performance art shows, debating the meaning of Marina Abramović’s work, and developing their own theories of political performance. For experts in performance theory, such punditry and provocation is like the image in a funhouse mirror. It’s hard to make sense of such bizarre, distorted images—let alone to recognize ourselves in them. This article insists (...) that, nonetheless, we should try. Trump and his movement pose special challenges to American political culture—and also to academic performance theory. His rise has revealed the limitations of a politics (and performance theory) based on norms and their transgression. It has also given the lie to politicians’ false belief that they (and only they) are not performing their politics. The challenge now—for academics, activists, citizens, and journalists alike—is to articulate how performance works, how it provides models of cultural power. (shrink)

The issues are familiar to most in bioethics by now, through professional or personal experiences (or both). The rapidly expanding population of elderly persons who require care is raising critical...

(2005). Reflections on the Appointment of Dr. Edmund Pellegrino to the President's Council on Bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. W8-W9. doi: 10.1080/15265160500388640.

This special issue addresses the legacy of the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study on health reform, particularly the Affordable Care Act. This article offers readers a guide to the themes that emerge in this issue. These themes include individual consent interrelated to consequences in populations issues, need for better government oversight in research and health care, and the need for overhauling our bioethics training to develop a population-level, culturally driven approach to research bioethics. We hope the guidance offered in (...) this issue will help shape a new framework to bioethics that can be integrated into the foundation of health care reform. (shrink)