Self-Presentational Strategies of Modern and Traditional U.S. Presidents in State of the Union and Inaugural Addresses

The role of the American presidency has evolved from what scholars have described as "traditional" to "modern" (e.g., Barbour & Wright, 2012; Nichols, 1994; Pfiffner, 1994; Shaw, 1987). Traditional presidencies include those from the founding of the office in 1789 to the early 1930s, and modern presidencies include those from the 1930s (Franklin D. Roosevelt) to the present (cf. Greenstein, Berman, & Felzenberg, 1977). The evolution of the presidency from traditional to modern has included many changes to the office, among them an increase in bureaucracy, unilateral policy-making capacity, and visibility (cf. Greenstein, 1978, 1988). As the office of the presidency has changed, so have the presidents' motive profiles (Whitehead & Smith, 2001) and the self-presentational strategies presidents have included in their speeches (Whitehead & Smith, 1999). Whitehead and Smith (1999) found that modern presidents used two of the five self-presentational strategies delineated by Jones and Pittman (1982) more than did traditional presidents in their first inaugural addresses. Specifically, modern presidents used more statements that made them appear likeable (ingratiation) and strong (intimidation) than did their traditional counterparts. Modern and traditional presidents did not differ in their use of statements that made them appear competent (self-promotion), worthy (exemplification), and weak (supplication) in their inaugural addresses. Since the Whitehead and Smith study, the United States has elected two presidents (George W. Bush & Barack H. Obama). One purpose of the present study is to examine whether the first inaugural addresses of these 21st century presidents concur with the previous findings on the use of self-presentational strategies in inaugural addresses. The present study analyzed and compared the self-presentational strategies employed by modern and traditional presidents in their first state of the union and inaugural addresses. Researchers have found that the use of self-presentational strategies may be affected by the situation (e.g., Baumeister & Jones, 1978). Of particular import for a self-presentational analysis of presidential rhetoric is the situation of each presidential speech. The inaugural address, while not mandated by the Constitution, is a traditional speech given by all presidents (with rare exceptions) from the time of George Washington. It is considered to be part of the transition from one presidency to the next, and has been described as an extension of the oath of office (cf. Campbell & Jamieson, 1990). In contrast, the constitutionally mandated state of the union address provides that presidents give to Congress information about the state of the union, and make necessary recommendations. Most traditional presidents delivered this speech in writing to Congress, with the present tradition of orally delivering the speech beginning with Woodrow Wilson in 1913. As communication technology evolved, modern presidents delivered their state of the union addresses with televised coverage. As scholars have noted, it is now considered appropriate for modern presidents to speak "to the public" (Tulis, 1987). Indeed, the state of the union speech has recently been characterized as political theatre (Jacobs, 2012), and a "political spectacle marked by self-congratulation and spin" ("The Real State of the Union," 2004). Halstead characterizes the current state of the union speech as ". an exercise in self-congratulatory rhetoric and showmanship, loaded with snappy sound bites and made-for-television tributes to special guests planted in the audience" (2004, p. xi). When comparing the state of the union address and the inaugural address, Fallows (2004, p.5) makes the following statement: "Even more than the inauguration, the State of the Union has become a ritual celebration of the glory of the presidency. At an inauguration the excitement surrounding the President is often tempered by the pathos of an old President being ushered off the scene. …