Over the years, American presidents have resorted to a more direct approach when it comes to connecting with the American public. At first glance, a State of the Union Address presented by President Barack Obama or George Bush may seem familiar, in parts, compared to a State of the Union Address presented by President George Washington or Franklin Roosevelt. Although the content from these speeches may be similar, there is a clear distinction between the presidential rhetoric, the delivery of such content from Presidents Obama and Bush, compared to those of Presidents Roosevelt and Washington. In his study, Ryan Teten concluded that there were three distinct periods in the evolution of presidential rhetoric: a founding period, a traditional period, and a modern period (Teten 12). According to his research, Washington would be considered as being part of the founding period, while Presidents Obama and Bush would be classified as the modern presidents. Roosevelts speeches on the other hand, demonstrated the commonly held doctrines of the traditional period. If the content of these speeches rarely provide an occasion for original thought, then why did the rhetorical styles vastly differ (Lim 2)? One would expect consistency, as set by a previous precedent. On the contrary, all three rhetorical periods embodied elements that distinguished one from the other. This is because in each period, the president was faced with the duty of persuading the audience, in relation to their time period. One cannot expect Washingtons first State of the Union Address to be delivered in the twentieth century and receive similar reactions now as it did then. And certainly, one of Obamas speeches would not hold the same power in effecting the American people living in the 1790s. .
The fact is twentieth century America is now distinguished by its unique, modernly advanced, and instant culture that was not present in eighteenth century America.
