Presidential Communication
What's new, what's old, and what might change?
One quick note before we start. The University of Virginia Press has created a special coupon code for my new volume, Mourning the Presidents. If you are interested (no pressure of course), you can buy the book directly from them, using code “10MOURNING” and receive 30% off. I apologize for not having it sooner and I’m so grateful to all of you who have expressed support and interest. Ok, on to history!
Last week, President Biden delivered his State of the Union address. Right before, I had the opportunity to give a talk about some of the early addresses to Congress, so I was naturally thinking about how communication practices have changed, what was unique about the early addresses, and what is timeless. I then listened to some podcasts after Biden’s speech, and noted that some pundits are calling for an evolution to the State of the Union—as it’s not exactly the most modern and compelling form of communication for the twenty-first century.
With both sides of the spectrum in mind, I thought it would be helpful to look at some of the origins of presidential communication, how it has evolved, and what might continue to change going forward.
In the early days, the president spoke to the American people infrequently. Washington delivered an inaugural address, an annual address to Congress, and the Farewell Address (which was printed in newspapers). He also occasionally wrote back to petitions or resolutions that he received from citizens, but not often. (For an example, see his letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island).
Furthermore, these communications weren’t always particularly full of details. Washington’s second inaugural said almost nothing, and he also holds the record for the shortest state of the union. In January 1790, he delivered 1089 words, which took less than 10 minutes to speak. Needless to say, that length hasn’t survived the test of history.
Washington’s first inaugural speech, which functioned as his first address to congress, was another rarity. It is impossible to capture the anxiety and tension of the moment. The nation was already on its second government and most republics don’t get second chances. Washington was keenly aware that every action would set precedent for those that followed and he was terrified one misstep would cause the entire experiment to fail.
As he tried to figure out how to give a presidential address for the first time, he referenced the requirement in Article II of the Constitution that makes it to the duty of the president to “recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” He basically asked for a rain check. He hoped Congress would be patient with him until he had more experience in office and encouraged them to return to the Constitution as their guide. No president since has similarly held his tongue or demonstrated such restraint.
Because early presidents spoke to Congress and the American people so infrequently, their states of the union served as genuine updates on state of the country. When Congress reconvened for a new session (usually in November or December), they hadn’t been at the seat of government in months. Without internet, email, phones, or even telegraphs, they relied on the post and newspapers for news—which were slow and limited. There were no standing committees to practice oversight of executive agencies or receive regular intelligence briefings.
So when Washington or Adams or Jefferson delivered their addresses, they often included written reports provided by the department secretaries on the state of the economy, the national credit, war readiness, the outcome of military efforts, or in-progress diplomatic missions—all of which Congress read for the first time upon their arrival.
And yet, while almost everything Washington did and said while in office was new to the American people at the time, many of his recommendations and the themes he emphasized have become a welcome tradition. Here are a few universal themes that crop up again and again (including last week.
Almost every single year he was in office, Washington encouraged Congress to increase its defense spending. He insisted that “to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” He urged reform in the management and organization of the militia, investment in the navy and coastal defenses, and the formation of a military academy to train the next generation of officers.
Washington had no desire to pursue war, but rather, he viewed an updated, modern military, and a strong navy in particular, as essential preventatives to ensure the United States’ place in a community of nations. A strong military was also a necessary precaution to protect neutrality and American trade at a time when France and Great Britain had spent decades trying to destroy each other.
Next, Washington constantly urged the “promotion of Science and Literature” in annual addresses, his Farewell Address, and private correspondence. He said “Knowledge is in every Country the surest basis of public happiness.”
Third, Washington trumpeted the importance of the post office. He proclaimed it was “indispensable for the instrumentality in diffusing a knowledge of the laws and proceedings of the Government.” The safe and timely distribution of knowledge and correspondence “contributes to the security of the people, serves also to guard them against the effects of mis-representation and misconception.” He wanted Americans to be able to communicate with each other and with their government. And he wanted the government to be able to communicate with the American people.
Fourth, Washington urged the adoption of judicial reform to better guarantee an “impartial dispensation of justice” and “to open doors of justice to all descriptions of persons.” Justice was a particularly important theme in the 1794 and 1795 addresses in the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion. He vowed to both prosecute those who break laws, but respect rights and reward attachments of those who follow them.
Finally, Washington encouraged Congress to do all in its power to stabilize currency so that any fluctuations wouldn’t unduly burden the “poorer classes,” and to pay off its existing debts to preserve the nation’s credit and reputation on the world stage.
Of course, none of these themes or these messages would be precedent if those that followed Washington ignored them. On March 4, 1797, John Adams took the oath of office as the second president of the United States and delivered his inaugural—or his first address to Congress. Like Washington, he visited Congress to read his address and began the process of converting Washington’s themes into norms and precedent.
Adams briefly described the special history of the American people, the founding of the nation, and creation of the constitution to form a more perfect union. He proclaimed the importance of free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections, and rejected foreign interference in domestic affairs.
He promised to give an equal and impartial regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness of all the States in the Union, without preference or regard to a northern or southern, an eastern or western, position, their various political opinions on unessential points or their personal attachments.
He emphasized the importance of science and letters, and the value of schools, colleges, universities, institutions for propagating knowledge among all classes of people.
He supported investments to improve agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing to provide a better future for the nation.
He swore to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all nations.
And he reiterated his unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people.
Adams closed by following Washington’s lead. The first president had always closed his addresses by appealing to some sort of higher power. One year he called upon “the benign Parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness”
Another year he implored “the Supreme Ruler of nations, to spread his holy protection over these United States.”
Adams gave it his own special twist: “And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.”: to turn the machinations of the wicked to the confirming of our Constitution… to perpetuate to our Country that prosperity, which his goodness has already conferred, and to verify the anticipations of this Government being a safeguard to human rights.”
Not quite God Bless America, but close.
Jefferson’s presidency marked the beginning of the first evolution of presidential communication. Jefferson believed that spoken addresses to Congress smacked of monarchy, so instead, he submitted written remarks (other than his inaugurations). He also hated public speaking, so it served his interests either way.
Although he changed the method of delivery, Jefferson repeated many of the same themes as Washington and Adams, including the appeal at the end. Jefferson closed his inaugural address by saying, “And may that infinite power, which rules the destinies of the universe, lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.” Definitely a bit more humanist than Adams, but it was there, nonetheless.
For the next 110 years, every president followed Jefferson’s lead and delivered written remarks to Congress to fulfill their constitutional duty to provide a “state of the union.”
On December 2, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson, once again flipped that tradition, by returning to Congress, in person, to deliver oral remarks. Every president since has spoken his state of the union.
The twentieth century witnessed several additional changes to presidential communication. On December 6, 1923, President Calvin Coolidge delivered the first radio broadcast state of the union and a few decades later, on January 6, 1947, President Truman delivered the first televised state of the union.
In addition to these big addresses, presidents began answering questions from reporters, held press conferences, gave radio addresses in moments of crisis, and took advantage of advancements in transportation to tour the country and meet with citizens in person. As a result, the state of the union became less of an essential update, and more of an opportunity to articulate an agenda, identify a platform for upcoming elections, or reassure the American people during moments of crisis. Which made sense. Radio and relatively few TV stations offered the president the relatively undivided attention of the American people.
Now, in the twenty-first century, I’m wondering if it’s time to again rethink the state of the union. Fewer and fewer Americans watch television events live, especially politics. When they do turn on their televisions, there are countless options to consider, so a presidential address might not seem like the most entertaining option.
Furthermore, our attention spans stink. We are accustomed to sound bites, video clips, visual aids, and we tend to lose focus quickly. An hour-plus speech, without those visual aids, is asking a lot of people. To be sure, the cat-calling and general circus-like behavior last week certainly made things more interesting, but I’m not sure that should be the goal.
As many pundits noted, the January 6 Committee hearings were far more compelling than typical congressional affairs because they were highly produced. Tightly trimmed video clips, carefully choreographed speaking, and a strong narrative made them easy to follow.
There is no legal reason a similar treatment couldn’t be applied to the state of the union. One person (I can’t remember who now!), suggested the president speak from the Oval Office with video and other editorial elements and deliver the written remarks to Congress, per the Constitution. That would certainly be an interesting return to a Jeffersonian precedent (of sorts).
And yet, I will admit, I’m a bit of a sucker for tradition. I like the notion of the president coming to Congress to speak to them and the American people. Sure, it is a bit stuffy, but that sort of precedent is important in a political system that requires norms and precedents to keep going.
As I often say, historians are notoriously terrible future predicters, so I’m not sure what will happen next, but it will be interesting to put into historical context either way. What do you think? How should the president deliver the State of the Union? Or does it not matter? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
If you are new to my newsletter, thank you! If you’d like to read more, please consider The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution.
Available for purchase on Amazon, Bookshop, or wherever you like to buy books.
Podcasts/Radio:
IPPH On Air, February 1, 2023, Founding Fathers Legacy Series- Revolutionary America
Julie Mason Mornings, January 30, 2023, Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky on Presidents of Interest
2 Complicated 4 History, January 24, 2023, Lindsay Chervinsky, PhD
Press:
“Joe Biden could become the oldest president to seek a 2nd term. Does his age really matter?” AP Press, February 7, 2023.
“Most say Biden and Trump acted inappropriately in handling classified docs, poll finds,” McClatchy DC, January 23, 2023.
Events:
February 16: Dead History Live
February 23: The White House Historical Association, White House History Live: Mourning the Presidents
April 3: D.C. Mondays at the GWU Museum (virtual)
April 3: Massachusetts Historical Society, Mourning the Presidents: Loss and Legacy in American Culture
May 11: SMU Center for Presidential History, Mourning the Presidents: Loss and Legacy in American Culture
July 13: American Battlefield Trust National Teacher Institute
September 7: Virginia History of Museum and Culture
September 14: Valley Forge Leadership Forum
Great information! Thank you.
Question - do you think in this hyper partisan performative time that it could be possible for Congress to not invite the President to deliver the SOTU in person? Or am I missing something that states this option has to happen?
If delivering the speech in person is at the discretion of the House, I think we will see a day when the opposing party in the House simply refuses to invite the president and provide the platform. What do you think? Thanks!
I need to read more about Question Time in the UK and any equivalent occasions in other democracies. I suppose there are too many Congresspeople to make that practical in the US in person. A blog with length limitations and bipartisan moderation of comments? Spurious insults, etc. would be shown but sent to the bottom of the stack.