...speeches. The findings reveal presidential narrative of freedom that has been remarkably constant over time. However, within this broad narrative, presidents' political ideology and the context in which they spoke led to significant differences in the way they defined freedom and in the way they used the term to define the nation.

**********

There is perhaps no value that Americans cling to more tightly than freedom. Freedom has been the rallying cry of revolutions and the foundation of great social movements, from the founding of the nation to the Civil Rights movement and beyond. Symbolic images of freedom such as the Liberty Bell and the Statue of Liberty dominate the idealized stories of America's past, even as new images are crafted to carry on the tradition; the largest building being constructed on the site where the World Trade Center once stood, for instance, is called the Freedom Tower. Following the 2004 election, citizens in key battleground states were asked for a one-word answer to the question "What does America mean to you?" For roughly half of those asked, the answer was freedom (Cillizza 2006). Clearly, the idea of freedom has been, and continues to be, a tremendously important part of the American imagination. As Foner (1994, 436) puts it, "What ... could be more American than a devotion to freedom?" (see also Foner 2006; Lakoff 2006). (1)

Given the cultural resonance of the concept of freedom, it is unsurprising that the language of freedom (and liberty, freedom's rhetorical counterpart) is a staple of political discourse. Schochet (2003, 91) has noted that "liberty is one of the most important and ... persistent notions in the political vocabulary of the West." In particular, American presidents have made use of the language of freedom (Coe and Domke 2006; Domke 2004; Ivie 1987). Take, for instance, President George W. Bush's second inaugural address. In a speech that was only 2,083 words long, the president managed to use some form of the words freedom and liberty 49 times--more than 2 references for every 100 words he spoke. Bush talked of "the unfinished work of American freedom," the "promise of liberty," "freedom's cause," "liberty for all," "the history of freedom," and God as "the Author of liberty." Ultimately, the president made more references to freedom and liberty than he did to "America" and the "nation" combined.

Apart from its general prominence as a theme in presidential discourse, however, little is known about the particular ways in which presidents have employed freedom as a rhetorical device. Indeed, despite a considerable body of scholarship on the concept of freedom (e.g., Graebner 1977; Kammen 1986; Miller 1991; Patterson 1991) and a vast body of scholarship on presidential discourse (e.g., Campbell and Jamieson 1990; Hart 1987; Lim 2002; Teten 2003; Tulis 1987), very few studies have examined presidents' use of the language of freedom. Those few that have done so have focused narrowly on freedom's role as a metaphor (e.g., Ivie 1987; McGee 1980b). This is a significant void in the scholarship given the cultural importance of freedom in America and the regularity with which presidents have spoken of freedom and liberty. With this in mind, I employ qualitative and quantitative methods to examine presidents' use of the language of freedom across eight decades of presidential discourse, from 1933 to 2006. The article proceeds in four parts. I begin by offering a theoretical rationale for examining presidents' use of freedom. Following this, I undertake a qualitative textual analysis of presidential discourse, which reveals the broad narrative within which presidents have employed the language of freedom. I then proceed to a more detailed analysis, first enumerating theoretical expectations about the potential for variance in presidents' use of freedom and then exploring these expectations via quantitative content analysis. Finally, I discuss the strategic strengths and limitations of presidents' use of the language of freedom, as well as the theoretical and political implications of employing such a discourse.

Freedom, Symbolism, and Presidential Discourse

It may seem unnecessary to devote so much attention to freedom; it is, after all, only a word. But, as Rodgers (1987, 4) argues, words can be tremendously powerful in the political arena: "They inspire, persuade, enrage, mobilize. With words minds are changed, votes acquired, enemies labeled, alliances secured, unpopular programs made palatable.... Through words some of the most potent forces of modern politics are wheeled into motion." In U.S. politics, the president's words are more prominent than those of any other speaker. Numerous scholars have demonstrated that speaking to the public is one of the primary roles of the modern "rhetorical presidency" (e.g., Ceaser et al. 1981; Hart 1987; Tulis 1987). Indeed, the president must be constantly concerned with fulfilling his role as "Communicator-in-Chief" (Rozell 1995). Presidents often are successful at using their unique rhetorical platform to "go public" and gain support for their policies (Kernell 1997) and are frequently able to communicate in ways that allow them to control mass media environments and get their messages transmitted to the public (Coe et al. 2004; Domke 2004; Domke et al. 2006). Hart (1987, 45) argues that presidential discourse is particularly powerful because it demands action: "When a president speaks, doing is almost always being done." That is, when a president constructs something a certain way in discourse, it has a good chance of becoming that way in practice (Campbell and Jamieson 1990; Zarefsky 2004).

A significant body of scholarship indicates that much of the political importance that language has is due to its symbolic nature (e.g., Edelman 1977; Lasswell and Leites 1949; Rothman 1981). Modern presidents have always made abstract, symbolic terminology a regular part of their discourse, and this trend has become even more pronounced in recent decades (Lim 2002). For presidents, a discourse rich in familiar political symbols is strategically valuable because symbols are highly ambiguous and therefore highly adaptable. As Elder and Cobb (1983, 35) explain, "Often the meanings different people attribute to a symbol are quite divergent. It is this social variability in meaning that explains the peculiar potency of symbols to arouse and to reassure persons of diverse backgrounds, interests, and concerns." But the ambiguity of key political symbols also provides them with considerable potential for misuse. Such symbols have an "ideological importance" (Schochet 2003) generated by the fact that they play upon deeply held societal beliefs that usually operate below the level of conscious thought. McGee (1980a, 15) has explained the link between political symbols and ideology through the concept of the "ideograph," which is a "term found in political discourse ... representing collective commitment to a particular but equivocal and ill defined normative goal." In other words, ideographs--such as freedom, justice, equality, and so on--are imbued with historical and cultural significance, which makes them especially likely to resonate with an audience. The normative risk is that this easy resonance will encourage presidents to invoke these symbols at the expense of more complete and considered deliberation. If so, the overall quality of political discourse will surely suffer. Although one must be careful not to ascribe too much direct persuasive power to presidential rhetoric (Edwards 2003), it is clear that presidents have a substantial role in defining political reality (Entman 2004; Zarefsky 2004). As Windt (1990, 3) points out, "Political rhetoric creates the arena of political reality within which political thought and action take place." A political reality premised too much on ambiguous symbols such as freedom runs the risk of limiting citizens' ability to engage meaningfully with the broader political environment.

All of this suggests the value of carefully analyzing presidents' use of the language of freedom. Freedom is probably America's primary political symbol, and presidents are certainly America's primary political storytellers. (2) As presidential rhetoric helps Americans decide "what sort of people we are [and] how we are constituted as a community" (Stuckey 1991, 1), symbols such as freedom help citizens formulate understandings of their political worlds. Close examination of presidents' use of freedom over time should therefore shed light not only on presidential strategy but on the discursive construction of America and, by extension, the American people. Toward this end, I turn now to an analysis of the language of freedom in the modern American presidency. I focus on modern presidents--Franklin Roosevelt and those since--to maintain a manageable scope and because the presidency changed significantly during Roosevelt's administration, with presidential and federal governmental power growing substantially (Greenstein 2004). As Leuchtenburg (1988, 7) has observed, "By almost all accounts, the presidency as we know it today begins with Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

The Presidential Narrative of Freedom

How have modern presidents used one of America's foremost political symbols? A preliminary answer to this question can be had by undertaking a textual analysis of presidents' State of the Union and inaugural addresses. State of the Unions and Inaugurals are useful to study because they provide consistency (occurring at regular intervals), tend to draw substantial media attention, and provide a mix of celebratory nation-building rhetoric and deliberative policy rhetoric (Campbell and Jamieson 1990). I analyzed the sixty-four State of the Unions and eleven Inaugurals delivered between 1933 (the first year of Roosevelt's first term) and 2006. (3) Doing so revealed a common presidential narrative relying on three themes: America's cause, defining friends and foes, and justifying policy. In the first theme, presidents provide a foundational description of America's role vis-a-vis freedom. In the latter two themes, presidents mobilize this foundational understanding of freedom to shape the political environment--first by using freedom as a criterion for identifying friends and foes, then by using freedom as a rationale for political decisions. Closer examination of each theme provides insight into how the three function together within a broader narrative.

America's Cause

Modern presidents have, without exception, presented the United States

as the global leader of "the cause of freedom"--a unique responsibility that demands the nation forward world freedom by defending it at any cost. Although others may aid the United States in this cause, it is ultimately America's responsibility to ensure that freedom prospers. As John Kennedy put it in his 1962 State of the Union, "[O]ur Nation is commissioned by history to be either an observer of freedom's failure or the cause of its success." The United States' unique relationship to freedom is premised upon the notion that Americans believe deeply...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.