The American Presidency: An Exhibit on the Public Presidency in Oregon

By: Robert M. Eisinger

TO STATE THAT U.S. CITIZENS think about the presidency when they conceptualize politics risks belaboring the obvious. For over two hundred years, the presidency has evolved from one of three co-equal branches of government to something bigger, grander — imperial, some have even claimed — and more public. The public presidency demands reflection and analysis, not because scholars are ignoring it but rather because of the opposite — our constant attention toward presidents and their constant attention toward the citizenry suggest that American political institutions are changing in ways unimaginable at the nation’s founding.1
      The Oregon Historical Society’s opportunity to house the traveling Smithsonian Institution exhibit, The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden (April 28–September 17, 2006) has allowed many of us to evaluate the role of the presidency and, more specifically, the public presidency in Oregon. Is there something Oregon citizens and scholars alike can learn by reviewing what presidents have done and said while in the state? What can we learn about the intersection between political institutions and political behavior by evaluating presidential behavior in the Pacific Northwest? Is there something about presidential conduct in Oregon that distinguishes itself? Finally, how does a review of the public presidency in Oregon educate us about how presidents have become magnified by the media and in our eyes?2
      We decided to add some of the Oregon story to the Smithsonian exhibit. The last part of The American Presidency, therefore, contains the most illuminating artifacts, illustrations, photographs, and other historical materials from the Oregon Historical Society collections that pertain to the modern public presidency in Oregon.3
      The OHS collection is best understood and appreciated after learning about how scholars have studied the public presidency. Richard E. Neustadt illuminates our understanding of the public presidency with his landmark work Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan.1 Originally published in 1961, the book transformed the way political scientists thought about the presidency. Neustadt forced them to think about presidential power in terms of each president’s ability to persuade — Congress, the people, his party, even the bureaucracy. Rather than envision the presidency as constrained by constitutional rules, Neustadt saw presidential acts as contingent on a chief executive’s ability to persuade others that his agenda is worthy of time, resources, and public support. A competent presidency in terms of intellect but without persuasive powers — Herbert Hoover, for example — is an impotent president likely to lose favor with Congress and, ultimately, the citizens who elected him.4
 Lyndon B. Johnson greets supporters in Portland in 1964.

OHS neg., OrHi 65573 
 
      This idea that presidents must persuade is also found in Samuel Kernell’s 1986 groundbreaking book, Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership.2 Kernell suggests that congressional machinations make it difficult for presidents to woo individual members of Congress. Simply put, there are too many members and too many committee chairs, each with too much territorial autonomy. If a president wants to advance his agenda, then his best strategy is to “go public” by circumventing Congress and taking his case directly — or, more precisely, indirectly via the media — to the American people. A president should visit a particular region, give a speech, and encourage people to tell their wavering member of Congress to support the president’s agenda.5
 Dominican nuns greet John F. Kennedy, who visited Marycrest High School in Portland during the Oregon primary in May 1960.

OHS neg., CN021686 
 
      Jeffrey K. Tulis’s 1987 book, The Rhetorical Presidency, argues that while Article II of the Constitution provides a framework for the powers of the president, there is sufficient ambiguity in the Constitution that presidents can create an “informal constitutional presidency.”3 This “informal” constitution
puts a premium on active and continuous presidential leadership of public opinion … [and] is buttressed by several institutional, albeit extra-constitutional, developments. These include the proliferation of presidential primaries as a model of selection and the emergence of the mass media as a pervasive force.4For Tulis and other scholars, the presidency cannot and should not be studied merely by looking at the parameters (that is, the do’s and don’ts) in the Constitution. To the contrary, presidents shape their presidency through the public, and, in turn, we shape the presidency by our attention to it.
6
      Tulis explicitly states that a public presidency is shaped by developments beyond the Constitution, most specifically the presidential selection process. In the twentieth century, arguably no facet of American electoral politics changed as rapidly as the means by which citizens choose their president. Radio, television, and now the Internet have become staples of the American political fabric. Fireside chats and streetlight parades are historical relics, if not anachronisms. Air travel — not to mention post-Watergate campaign finance and political party reforms — has changed the way presidential candidates raise money as well. The smoke-filled rooms of party power brokers have been replaced by meet-and-greet fundraisers. A presidential candidate now gets off a private plane (no more coach), is whisked to a grand and preferably historic hotel, speaks for an hour or two, and then returns to his plane, having raised tens of thousands of dollars for the cause. In no time, he descends on another city or town and repeats the same process, until the sun sets or the plane needs refueling.7
 Herbert Hoover visited Newburg in August 1955 to dedicate Minthorn House.

OHS neg., OrHi 104484 
 
      The archive and museum collections at the Oregon Historical Society highlight these themes of the public presidency. Photographs record the formality of President Herbert Hoover, the erudite engineer who looks almost awkward and “un-hip” to today’s mtv generation. There is a magnificent photograph of Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Mt. Hood in the background. Arguably a choreographed “photo-opportunity,” this picture captures the importance of the visual in politics, even in the pre-television age.8
      The newspaper headline that reads “Ike Appears In Bathrobe” (dateline Klamath Falls) speaks volumes about the lack of salaciousness and the absence of public opinion polls in the 1950s. President John Kennedy’s remarkable photogenic nature and sex appeal are marvelously revealed in a photograph with Catholic nuns, and there is a photo of a smiling Lyndon Johnson on the campaign trail.9
      Political cartoons from the Oregonian and other newspapers also shape our understanding of the presidency in Oregon. Attention is drawn to the presidential primaries of the 1960s. Richard Nixon appears in a variety of campaign forms, including a video montage of speeches he delivered when in Oregon.10
      Film footage of presidents in Oregon is particularly revealing, reminding us of the similarities and differences among presidents and their campaigns. In one film, President Richard Nixon eloquently speaks to Oregonians about campus unrest and the merits of civil disobedience. His image contrasts dramatically to the sad, distant, disoriented image of a president lost in the Watergate scandal. In another photo, President Gerald Ford discusses his concern about dependence on foreign oil. Film also captures President Jimmy Carter speaking about the surgical clear-cutting of forests and various twentieth-century presidents shaking hands with citizens without the intense Secret Service protection that has surrounded the president since September 11, 2001.11
      Through each of these artifacts, photographs, and films visitors to The American Presidency will learn that part of the public presidency has been shaped in Oregon and that Oregonians have been part of that process. While Oregon has not been known as an important presidential primary campaign stop, the OHS exhibit repeatedly shows Oregon’s breathtaking beauty and the affection that presidents have shown toward the state. Oregon politicians have generally been on cordial terms with presidents, and Oregonians have expressed enthusiasm and appreciation for their leaders.12
   
      Similarly, the Oregon Historical Society’s portion of The American Presidency exhibit — the cartoons, headlines, photographs, and videotapes from the OHS collections — also shed light on Oregon’s distinctive political character. Citizens, not parties, rule the political arena, and discussions center on the environment and timber jobs, unlike other states in which race (as in Illinois or New York, for example) or defense jobs (such as in Washington state) may pervade the presidential vernacular.13
      The American Presidency exemplifies vital images and expressions of the presidency in Oregon and throughout the nation. It concludes with three images of President George W. Bush, one on an aircraft career with the motto “Mission Accomplished” in the background; another after 9/11, megaphone in hand, near what was the World Trade Center; and the third speaking before both houses of Congress. Each image captures the twenty-first-century public presidency — the centrality of the public, the need to persuade, and the president’s relationship with Congress. Each shows presidential power artfully crafted in a media-driven era. Each demands that we, the people, continue to study the changing nature of the modern presidency.14
   

Notes1. Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidency: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan (New York: The Free Press, 1991).2. Samuel Kernell, Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1968).3. Michael Nelson, Introduction to Jeffrey K. Tulis, “The Two Constitutional Presidencies,” in The Presidency and the Political System, ed. Michael Nelson, 7th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2003). See also Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987).4. Tulis, “Two Constitutional Presidencies,” 80.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.