Forum Network

Wayne Fields, a professor at Washington University, lectures on the theories he has developed during his study of American presidential rhetoric.

An expert on American political argument who is frequently called upon to comment upon political rhetoric, Fields has drawn from a wealth of speeches, secondary scholarship, and political theory to come up with a theory of his own: that rhetoric serves to help unite diverse groups of Americans. In his book A Union of Words: A History of Presidential Eloquence, Fields says that for presidents, the work, and the obligation of their eloquence, is to hold an ever enlarging 'us' together even as we lament the difference between what we want and what we have. From Jefferson's Enlightenment cadences to Lincoln's sonorous, Biblical imagery and beyond, the measure of presidential eloquence is not only substance, but style; not only the ability to communicate, but the ability to resonate with an audience. How did we get from Washingtonian rhetoric to Reagan's role as 'the great communicator', and the more informal speeches of his successors? What are the big themes we can take away from an election that is sure to be remembered as contentious, historic and steeped in oratory?