As leaders of a diverse democracy, how do U.S. presidents define American national identity in their rhetoric? Using an interpretive approach, Vanessa Beasley attempts to answer this question by examining inaugural and State of the Union addresses from 1885 to 2000. She concludes that presidents have adopted an ideational standard for American identity in their public discourse that is both inclusive and exclusive at the same time.

Referring to it as the “shared beliefs” hypothesis, Beasley argues that presidents have promoted a national identity where “Americans are Americans because they share certain ways of thinking” (p. 46). These ways of thinking have been rooted in “Puritan notions of an American civil religion” where Americans are viewed as “God's chosen people” with global responsibilities (p. 47). This focus on shared beliefs has encouraged the American people to overlook their differences and has remained remarkably consistent for 115 years.

The heart of this book is three chapters that detail “some of the more unfortunate implications” (p. 15) of the ideational standard promoted by presidents. In particular, Beasley contends that presidential rhetoric has often portrayed immigrants, Native and African Americans, and women outside the realm of American shared beliefs. For instance, she argues that presidential discourse in response to immigration problems has frequently implied that immigrants may not be capable of understanding the nation's common convictions and, thus, they are often “portrayed as hopelessly alien and dangerous” (p. 73).

Beasley concedes that the emphasis on common ways of thinking by presidents has been overtly inclusive, encourages social cohesion, and probably has allowed these leaders to manage a diverse democracy. However, she also argues that this focus might make deeds matter less than creed, discourages democratic engagement, fosters a need for opposition, and inhibits good-faith discussions of American differences (pp. 63–66). She pushes for a new type of presidential rhetoric where diversity is spoken of fondly and Americans are told how to put their beliefs into action.

To her credit, Beasley takes a systematic approach to examining presidential rhetoric, an approach that is often missing in rhetorical studies. The decision to analyze only inaugural and State of the Union addresses creates a problem, however. The subjects the author explores (i.e., immigration, race, and gender) are topics presidents have infrequently addressed at length in the speeches examined (as she herself points out). As a result, many of the speech passages used as a foundation for this book are quite short, frequently only a couple of sentences (or rarely more than a few paragraphs). In fact, the passages cited are so brief—and often only indirectly related to the relevant subjects—that there is little basis for many of the author's arguments. She, therefore, often strains to demonstrate that certain themes have remained constant in presidential rhetoric over time, and she also jumps to conclusions. The result is a book littered with such words and phrases as “implied,” “subtly,” “presumably,” “suggests,” “hinted at,” “underlying message,” “seemed to argue,” and “one might hear faint echoes” instead of direct evidence.

Here are a few brief examples. Although Ronald Reagan praises a young Vietnamese woman who came to America and graduated from West Point in his 1985 State of the Union address, Beasley argues that his rhetoric “bears traces” of the exclusivist logic of past presidents because he does not utter the word “immigrant” (p. 88). Similarly, she speaks of “the Reaganesque tendency to announce that race is irrelevant to the future of the United States” (p. 120). Yet, in the passages cited, Reagan does not state that discussions of race are no longer necessary; he merely sets a goal to end all racial barriers.

A number of Beasley's arguments are also contradictory. She repeatedly criticizes presidential rhetoric that distinguishes—in any way—immigrants, Native and African Americans, and women from the “true” American citizenry. However, she faults Harry Truman for not “thanking women alone for their wartime industry at home” (p. 142), and she wants presidents to speak more openly about Americans' differences. Likewise, she laments Reagan's failure to identify those people who need assistance in his first inaugural address (p. 117), but she often criticizes presidents for pointing out that certain groups need help because it implies that these groups are “inferior.”

The author has some valid reasons for examining only inaugural and State of the Union addresses: These speeches are likely to contain each president's idealized vision of the country and they occur with predictable frequency. Nonetheless, her interpretations would have been more believable had she compared the themes she identifies from the two speech genres studied with themes from other presidential remarks that more directly address the issues discussed. (It is interesting that Beasley ends her book with passages from a Clinton speech made in Austin, Texas, in October 1995 to demonstrate the type of rhetoric she hopes future presidents adopt, finding her ideal in neither an inaugural nor a State of the Union address.)

There are other problems with this work. Beasley argues that presidents are constrained in their language by the logic of past presidential discourse. She provides little evidence to support this claim other than showing some similarities in rhetoric across time, however. As aforementioned, she also bemoans the fact that presidents do not openly discuss American differences, yet she offers few arguments why a focus on diversity will create a healthier society and/or a more united populace than already exists. In other words, she advocates a new type of presidential discourse, but she provides little justification for such a shift.

You, the People raises an interesting question about how presidential rhetoric can shape the American national identity. I do not doubt that some scholars interested in interpretive studies of presidential rhetoric will consider this book's interpretations valuable. Nonetheless, I found Beasley's arguments largely unsatisfying and unconvincing.