grief, glory, and political capital in the capitol: presidents eulogizing presidents

This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 15 November 2014, At: 14:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Death StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20

Grief, Glory, and PoliticalCapital in the Capitol:Presidents EulogizingPresidentsMichael Robert Dennis a , Karen Ridder a & AdrianneDennis Kunkel aa University of Kansas , Lawrence, Kansas, USAPublished online: 20 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Michael Robert Dennis , Karen Ridder & Adrianne Dennis Kunkel(2006) Grief, Glory, and Political Capital in the Capitol: Presidents EulogizingPresidents, Death Studies, 30:4, 325-349, DOI: 10.1080/07481180600553302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481180600553302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07481180600553302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481180600553302

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

GRIEF, GLORY, AND POLITICAL CAPITAL IN THECAPITOL: PRESIDENTS EULOGIZING PRESIDENTS

MICHAEL ROBERT DENNIS, KAREN RIDDER, andADRIANNE DENNIS KUNKEL

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Kunkel and Dennis (2003) established a framework for the examination ofcontemporary eulogia drawn from the comforting and social support paradigmsfound in psychology and communication literatures. Dennis and Kunkel(2004) applied the framework to eulogies for fallen national heroes (e.g., victimsof terrorism and space shuttle astronauts) delivered by American presidents, andboth illustrated its utility and noted several minor variations (e.g., presidents didnot establish credibility early in speeches or portray emotion as individual experi-ences). The current study illuminates the nature of eulogies for past presidents bysitting presidents, and examines the eulogies of Presidents John Kennedy, DwightEisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan by Presidents Lyndon Johnson,Nixon, William Clinton, and George W. Bush, respectively. As highlightedby Kunkel and Dennis’ framework, these eulogists accomplish many of therecognized comforting and consolation responsibilities. The presidents sometimesfurther their own causes and agendas when considered in hindsight, in ironicand prophetic fashion; thus, also meeting Jamieson and Campbell’s (1982)definition of the rhetorical hybrid. Finally, the destiny and glory of the eulogizedare often noted by eulogists, continuing the legacy that started with the deathof George Washington, America’s first president (Berens, 1977).

Introduction

Forty-three men have assumed the title of President of the UnitedStates of America and, for most of them, it was the office equated withthe most powerful position in the civilized world. Greatness is apre-requisite and a consequence of the American Presidency. Accord-ingly, when presidents die, they are eulogized by presidents with no

Received 6 September 2005; accepted 21 November 2005.Address correspondence to Michael Robert Dennis, Assistant Professor, Department

of Communication Studies, University of Kansas, 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd.,Lawrence, KS 66045-7574, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

325

Death Studies, 30: 325–349, 2006Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0748-1187 print/1091-7683 onlineDOI: 10.1080/07481180600553302

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

shortage of glory and praise. Yet, as Kunkel and Dennis (2003)claimed and verified, the rhetorical situation (Bitzer, 1968) that callsforth eulogistic expression is fraught with much more than the expec-tation of memorializing the deceased; the appropriate eulogisticresponse consoles and comforts the audience and, perhaps, theeulogist as well.

The examination of eulogies delivered both by and for presi-dents warrants our scholarly attention for several reasons. First andforemost, the honor with which the presidency and presidents areimbued is noteworthy. Thus, the extent and nature of praiseoffered in their eulogies are likely to separate them from otherinstances of the larger genre of eulogia. Second, a legacy ofdeification and portrayal of the prophetic destiny of Americanpresidents commenced with a series of eulogies for the nation’soriginal ‘‘founding father,’’ President George Washington (Berens,1977). Also, Jamieson and Campbell (1982) chose the sub-genre ofascendant vice presidents eulogizing the deceased presidents theyreplaced to illustrate the researchers’ fascinating notion of the rhe-torical hybrid, a generic blend of epideictic (ceremonial), forensic(argumentation=judicial) and=or deliberative (issue=advocacy) rhe-torical dimensions or purposes. Moreover, eulogies of presidentsby presidents may be expected to conform to the expectationsdetailed in Kunkel and Dennis’ (2003) integrative framework forthe analysis of consolation features (i.e., establishment of credi-bility, praise for the deceased, self-disclosure of emotion, problem-focused coping, positive reappraisal, and the affirmation andcontinuation of relationships with the deceased) in eulogia, but alsoto perhaps vary from the framework in interesting ways as well.Indeed, eulogies delivered by sitting presidents for victims ofterrorism and space shuttle disasters featured little in the way ofcredibility devices, notation of the deceaseds’ shortcomings, andportrayal of individual emotion, though collective emotion wasdescribed, attempts to unify predominated, and references to bothGod and the inadequacy of discourse in times of grief were com-mon (Dennis & Kunkel, 2004). Finally, the inspection of fourrecent eulogies of presidents by presidents described in this articlereveals a trend wherein eulogists further and defend their owncauses, agendas, and even future reputations.

This article applies the integrative framework for the analysisof eulogia (Kunkel & Dennis, 2003; Dennis & Kunkel, 2004),

326 M. R. Dennis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the notions of the rhetorical hybrid ( Jamieson & Campbell, 1982),and the destinies of American presidents portrayed in eulogies(Berens, 1977), to examine the eulogies given by Lyndon Johnsonupon the death of John Kennedy, Richard Nixon upon the deathof Dwight Eisenhower, William Clinton upon the death of RichardNixon, and George W. Bush upon the death of Ronald Reagan.The selected eulogies responded to contexts featuring differentrelationships between men and different types of deaths. The John-son speech was delivered just days after Kennedy’s assassinationand Johnson’s subsequent oath of office. The Nixon speech wasdelivered a decade after Eisenhower left office. Nixon had servedas Eisenhower’s vice president, failed in a bid for the White Housein 1960, and then succeeded mere months before Eisenhower’sdeath. The Clinton speech was delivered nearly two decades afterNixon left office in disgrace and halfway through Clinton’s firstterm in office. He had no obvious political tie to Nixon other thanthe presidency and probably did not support Nixon during thenation’s engagement in fighting with Vietnam. Bush deliveredhis speech honoring Reagan, a popular Republican party leader,in the middle of a highly contested re-election campaign. Bush’sfather had been Reagan’s vice president, though Reagan had beencompletely out of the public eye for several years due to his fatalstruggle with Alzheimer’s disease. The variety of contexts repre-sented within the same genre promises to support Jamieson andCampbell’s claims that ‘‘generic analysis enables us to appreciatethe idiosyncratic as well as the recurrent’’ and to identify the‘‘unique fusion’’ of elements that constitute ‘‘sensitive response toa complex situation’’ (p. 157). Thus, our understanding of appro-priate linguistic approaches to grief, and the loss of honored andcherished others, will be furthered.

An Integrative Framework for Creationand Criticism of Eulogia

Kunkel and Dennis (2003) visited the rhetorical scholarshipaddressing eulogies to assess the extent to which it provided direc-tion for the multiple goals of contemporary eulogists and found itwanting. They asserted that eulogists may comfort their audiencesand console themselves, as well as memorialize the deceased, butthat only the latter was fully evident and even minimally described

Presidents Eulogizing Presidents 327

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in extant research. Kunkel and Dennis drew from constructs andtheories of effective public speaking and eulogizing, distressappraisal and coping, interpersonal comforting, and grief manage-ment found in communication and psychology literatures to forgea framework of strategies for the effective creation and critique ofconsolation in eulogies.

Credibility

As far back in the communication annals as Aristotle’s Rhetoric, theestablishment of an orator’s ethos, or character and credibility, hasbeen advised. Eulogists often mark their credibility as such early intheir presentations by acknowledging their relationships with thedeceased. Notably, however, eulogists who are well known,especially but not only American presidents, tend to establish theircredibility to eulogize far less frequently (Kunkel & Dennis, 2003;Dennis & Kunkel, 2004).

Praise for the Deceased

The memorialization and honoring of the deceased is both recog-nized in extant eulogia scholarship and appears almost universallyin contemporary eulogia as well.

Self-Disclosure of Emotion

James Pennebaker (1997) and his colleagues have established afascinating and impressive catalogue of the positive health-related,emotional, and behavioral benefits accrued by distressed indivi-duals who translate their thoughts and feelings about trauma intolanguage, either orally or in writing (e.g., Harber & Pennebaker,1992). Though Pennebaker initially posited the cathartic effectof merely expressing inhibited emotions, more functional under-standings of distressing situations also emerge with the self-disclosure of related feelings and subsequent mental constructionof coherent narratives from otherwise chaotic and troublingchronologies of events. It follows that eulogists often alleviate theirown grief via public disclosure of their emotions (Kunkel &Dennis, 2003). Presidents eulogizing heroes and victims tend to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

portray collective emotion or the emotion of others, rather thantheir own (Dennis & Kunkel, 2004).

Problem-Focused Coping: Suggestions for Action

A natural initial response to distress is to engage in what Lazarus(1991) labeled problem-focused coping, or the engagement in deci-sions or actions that will actually alleviate the distressing eventitself or its negative consequential perceptions. Of course, in theevent of the death of a cherished other, short of miraculous medi-cine or the supernatural, we cannot undo the distressing event.Nevertheless, eulogists often attempt to diminish the bereavementof their audiences by suggesting actions that may help. A commondevice employed by eulogists appears to be the advocacy, implicitor explicit, of a program or cause that was important to thedeceased.

Emotion-Focused Coping: Positive Reappraisal

Lazarus (1991) recognized that when nothing can be done to rectifya distressing situation, emotion-focused coping, the regulating anddealing with the resulting emotion(s) and or cognition(s), is theviable alternative. Among other less favorable forms of emotion-focused coping such as denial, positive reappraisal entails effortsto change, refocus, or reframe the meanings of an experience orevent so that they are more positive, and less threatening. It is fairto say that positive reappraisal is akin to finding the silver lining indark clouds. Accordingly, eulogists often offer positive reappraisalsof the loss of loved ones to audiences, and they tend to exemplifyone of several common varieties: references to an afterlife, appreci-ation of the deceased’s good earthly life, and appreciation of timespent with, or lessons learned from, the deceased.

Affirmation of Vivid Relationships and Continuationof Interactive Bonds

Contemporary grief therapists and theorists (e.g., Attig, 1996;Neimeyer, 2001b) argue against ‘‘letting go,’’ detaching from thedeceased and moving on, or otherwise achieving closure of thissort, as effective modes of recovery. Rather than the ‘‘withdrawal


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of psychic energy from the one who has died’’ (Neimeyer, 2001a,p. 3), meaning reconstruction (Neimeyer, 1998) and ‘‘relearningthe world’’ (Attig, 1996) are posited as the central mechanisms inhealthy grieving. Of most relevance to the rhetoric of eulogies, thisnewer paradigm entails the assimilation of the relationship with thedeceased into a larger context that recognizes the reality of bothpast and present=future connections. In fact, relationships withtheir inner representations of the deceased may influence survi-vors’ outlooks and decision making to the extent that their relation-ships with the deceased might be considered interactive (Silverman& Nickman, 1996). To affirm that real interaction existed and wasenjoyed between the eulogized and either or both the audienceand the eulogist, the latter often reveals moments of private, other-wise unknown moments with, or insights about, the deceased.

Eulogists may also affirm the reality and vividness of relation-ships with the deceased by noting his or her personal flaws,shortcomings, or deficiencies. This feature has been largelyunrecognized in eulogy scholarship and may seem intuitivelyinappropriate without consideration of the purpose it is serving.Accordingly, the shortcomings that eulogists have chosen tomention were usually not harsh or demeaning (e.g., alcoholism orabusive tendencies), and instead tended to lightheartedly remindaudience members of the real and human side of the deceased.In fact, eulogies for victims and heroes delivered by presidentsdid not contain references to flaws of the deceased (Dennis &Kunkel, 2004). Perhaps to better facilitate continued bonds withthe deceased even in his or her corporal absence, eulogists ofteninclude second person, singular references to the deceased. Finally,presidents addressing tragedies have been shown (Dennis &Kunkel, 2004) to build and continue bonds with the bereaved, aswell as the deceased, in statements of national or internationalunity.

Rhetorical Hybrids and the Destinies of AmericanPresidents in Eulogies

Jamieson and Campbell (1982) report that rhetorical critics recog-nize the ‘‘overlap and combin(ation)’’ (p. 146) of elements ofepideictic (ceremonial), forensic (argumentation=judicial), and=ordeliberative (issue=advocacy) genres in some great speeches.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Even Aristotle noted that praise of another’s qualities (e.g., hercharity) may be equivalent to suggesting associated courses of action(e.g., donating resources to the needy). Jamieson and Campbellthus identify the ‘‘rhetorical hybrid’’ as a ‘‘creative fusion,’’ a‘‘generic blend,’’ and=or a ‘‘complex rhetorical form’’ that allowsthe pursuit of complex rhetorical purposes and desired effects(p. 147).

Jamieson and Campbell (1982) found the eulogy of politicalfigures to be a particularly apt genre for the exemplification ofthe rhetorical hybrid. While they also critique several Con-gressional eulogies delivered upon the assassination of presidentialcandidate and Senator Robert Kennedy, the majority of theiranalysis centers on President Lyndon Johnson’s eulogy=addressto Congress upon the assassination of President John Kennedy,and the rhetorical hybrids of six other ascendant vice presidentswho eulogized the presidents they were succeeding. Jamiesonand Campbell note that the efficacy of offering deliberative rhe-toric in the form of political agendas for new administrationsdepends on consistency with those of the deceased presidentsand subordination to the eulogistic requirements of theseaddresses. Otherwise, an ‘‘artistically unsatisfying structurallyfragmented rhetorical act’’ (p. 149) such as Andrew Johnson’s‘‘anomalous and highly inappropriate’’ (p. 155) eulogy of AbrahamLincoln, is produced. In particular, Jamieson and Campbellhighlight Johnson’s depiction of continuity between PresidentKennedy’s platform and his own as the appropriate legitimationof himself as the new president and subsequent endorsement ofthe policies to be pursued. Indeed, akin to the provision of prob-lem-focused coping noted by Kunkel and Dennis (2003), ‘‘eulogistswho supported the legislative initiatives of the deceased are likelyto call for completion of those unfinished labors’’ ( Jamieson &Campbell, p. 148).

Berens (1977) describes the origins and legacy of an epideicticfeature found in eulogies delivered for American presidents, a fas-cinating, and ‘‘virtually unnoticed’’ (p. 292) commonality of over30 of the many eulogies delivered for the first president of theUnited States of America, George Washington. These eulogiesrecounted what Berens calls the prophetic destiny of Washingtonoffered by Reverend Samuel Davies, ‘‘the prominent Presbyterianproponent of the Great Awakening’’ (p. 292) in 1775. Preaching to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

soldiers about to battle French and Indian troops, Davies lamentedthe common vices of the day such as drunkenness, profanity, andgambling before promising that the ‘‘Lord of Hosts’’ would see theright side to victory. When this sermon, ‘‘Religion and Patriotism:The Constituents of a Good Soldier,’’ was printed, Davies‘‘appended to this passage a prophetic footnote: ‘As a remarkableinstance of this, I may point out to the Public that heroic YouthColonel Washington, whom I cannot but hope Providence hashitherto preserved in so signal a Manner, for some importantService to his Country,’ ’’ (p. 292). Thus, the prophecy ofWashington’s divine destiny, to be faithfully echoed in so manyof his and other presidents’ eulogies, was initially proclaimedand popularized.

Analysis of Contemporary Presidents’ Eulogiesfor Presidents as Informed by the Integrative

Framework and Notions of the Rhetorical Hybridand Presidential Destiny

As analyzed below, each of the eulogies delivered by PresidentsJohnson, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush for Presidents Kennedy,Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, respectively, qualifies as a rhe-torical hybrid, but with different combinations of the featuresdescribed in the literature reviews above. Johnson directs the vastmajority of his address to Congress at explaining the agenda thathe will pursue as a continuation of Kennedy’s. His deliberativeapproach is supplemented by the recognized eulogistic comfortingstrategies of positive reappraisal and display of emotions. Nixonadopts a more classical stance in devoting the bulk of his rhetoricalefforts to praising and honoring Eisenhower’s character, accom-plishments, and destiny, though he affirms the relationship hehad with Eisenhower by portraying several private insights.Clinton appeals, in a very deliberative and problem-focusedcoping manner, for a wide-ranging and cumulative assessment ofNixon and his career, and delivers praise for Nixon’s actions out-side the office of president. Bush offers more positive reappraisalsthan the other selected eulogists, but serves his own cause andmotivations with many implicit connections presented as laudationof Reagan’s beliefs and personal qualities. Similarly, but only with


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the benefit of hindsight, the application of the selected conceptsreveals that both Nixon’s and Clinton’s speeches offer implicit sug-gestions for the perspectives from which their troubled latter daysin office should be considered.

President Lyndon B. Johnson for President John F. Kennedy

Johnson’s address to Congress, delivered on November 27,1963 (Lyndon Baines Johnson, n.d.), responded to a collectivenational grief perhaps unmatched by any event before or since,with the possible exception of the coordinated terrorist attackson New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania in the fall of2001. Besides the consequential shock of the popular Kennedy’sassassination five days earlier, in full view of a presidential motor-cade parade in Dallas, Johnson faced the prospect of great nationalupheaval. The forced ascendancy of Johnson into the role ofpresident occurred just months after the Civil Rights March onWashington, at the virtual height of Cold War tensions, and onthe verge of an era of many American citizens’ considerable sus-picion of all things established, especially governing entities. Withthe oath of office and his new duties as head of state, Johnsonfaced the enormous challenge of fostering order out of the chaosthat followed Kennedy’s death and giving the nation confidencein his new administration and leadership. Thus, the massiveamount of problem-focused coping offered by Johnson is not at allsurprising.

This nation will keep its commitments from South Vietnam to WestBerlin. . .

I rededicate this Government to the unswerving support of theUnited Nations, to the honorable and determined execution of our com-mitments to our allies, to the maintenance of military strength second tonone, to the defense of the strength and the stability of the dollar, to theexpansion of our foreign trade, to the reinforcement of our programs ofmutual assistance and cooperation in Asia and Africa, and to our Alliancefor Progress in this hemisphere.

The time has come for Americans of all races and creeds and politicalbeliefs to understand and to respect one another. So let us put an end to theteaching and the preaching of hate and evil and violence. Let us turn awayfrom the fanatics of the far left and the far right, from the apostles of bitter-ness and bigotry, from those defiant of law, and those who pour venom intoour nation’s bloodstream.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Johnson needed to establish his own legitimacy for the pos-ition of president as well as that of his new administration. In fact,after addressing those in attendance, Johnson commenced thespeech with, ‘‘All I have I would have given gladly not to bestanding here today,’’ thus demonstrating that his personalambition was far outweighed by his regret about the tragedy thatthrust him into office. A more obvious legitimation strategy clearlyevident is exactly that both prescribed and noted by Jamieson andCampbell (1982); Johnson frames much of his deliberativerhetoric, and the political agenda it describes, as the continuationof Kennedy’s values and policies.

. . .our determination to continue the forward thrust of America that hebegan. The dream of conquering the vastness of space, the dream ofpartnership across the Atlantic—and across the Pacific as well—thedream of a Peace Corps in less developed nations, the dream ofeducation for all of our children, the dream of jobs for all who seekthem and need them, the dream of care for our elderly, the dream ofan all-out attack on mental illness, and above all, the dream of equalrights for all Americans, whatever their race or color. . . And now theideas and the ideals which he so nobly represented must and will betranslated into effective action.

On the 20th day of January, in 19 and 61, John F. Kennedy told hiscountrymen that our national work would not be finished ‘‘in the firstthousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps inour lifetime on this planet.’’ ‘‘But,’’ he said, ‘‘let us begin.’’ Today in thismoment of new resolve, I would say to all my fellow Americans, let uscontinue.

It seems clear why this address has been referred to by some asJohnson’s ‘‘Let us Continue’’ speech. To note his massive provisionof direction and its alignment with Kennedy is not to claim, how-ever, that Johnson did not also provide evidence of his own worthi-ness separate from his association with his predecessor:

For 32 years Capitol Hill has been my home. I have shared many momentsof pride with you, pride in the ability of the Congress of the United States toact, to meet any crisis, to distill from our differences strong programs ofnational action.

As one who has long served in both Houses of the Congress, I firmlybelieve in the independence and the integrity of the legislative branch. AndI promise you that I shall always respect this. It is deep in the marrow of mybones.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Nonetheless, Johnson also practiced some of the moreexpected conventions of the eulogistic form. He praised anddeified Kennedy, so that his destiny was intertwined with America’s,in a manner much like that found within Davies’ prophetic visionof George Washington.

The greatest leader of our time has been struck down by the foulest deed ofour time.

John Kennedy’s death commands what his life conveyed—thatAmerica must move forward.

Johnson offered many accounts of his own emotions and those heshared with his audience of bereaved Americans.

An assassin’s bullet has thrust upon me the awesome burden of the presi-dency. I am here today to say I need your help. I cannot bear this burdenalone.

. . .the tragedy and the torment of these terrible days . . . our hour ofsorrow.

Johnson also offered several positive reappraisals of the loss ofKennedy by noting the opportunity to grow and bond in its wakeand by referencing his afterlife.

We meet in grief, but let us also meet in renewed dedication andrenewed vigor. Let us meet in action, in tolerance, and in mutual under-standing.

Today, John Fitzgerald Kennedy lives on in the immortal words andworks that he left behind. He lives on in the mind and memories ofmankind. He lives on in the hearts of his countrymen.

These statements and others (e.g., ‘‘our duty, yours and mine,’’‘‘let us unite,’’ and ‘‘from sea to shining sea’’) indicate Johnson’sdesire to unify the country under his stewardship, a quality ofeulogies characteristic of those presented by American presidents.This is especially exemplified in Reagan’s eulogy of the Challengercrew, and extended to international proportions in Bush’s eulogyof the Columbia crew (Dennis & Kunkel, 2004). Like Reaganand Clinton, in his eulogy for the USS Cole sailors, Johnson alsoproclaimed the inadequacy of his discourse in alleviating thesuffering of his listeners.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

No words are sad enough to express our sense of loss. No words are strongenough to express our determination to continue the forward thrust ofAmerica that he began.

Finally, Johnson closed, as did the presidents studied pre-viously within the integrative framework, with the invocation ofGod, though within the lyrics of America the Beautiful.

America, America, God shed His grace on thee, And crown thy good, withbrotherhood, from sea to shining sea.

As illustrated by Jamieson and Campbell (1982), Johnson’seulogy for Kennedy is a true rhetorical hybrid as it offers bothdeliberative rhetoric in the form of problem-focused coping andwhat they called ‘‘eulogistic requirements.’’ This analysis clearlyidentifies and labels his accomplishment of those requirements aswell as his social, domestic, and foreign diplomacy calls to arms.

President Richard M. Nixon for President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The relationship between eulogist and eulogized has rarely beenmore fascinating than when Richard Nixon honored DwightEisenhower, the man for whom Nixon served eight years as vicepresident. Eisenhower was defeating the Axis forces of WorldWar II in Europe as General of the United States Army whileNixon was emerging from service in the Navy to fame as an anti-communist, working with the House of Representatives’ Commit-tee on Un-American Activities. Before their victory in 1952, Nixonsuccessfully defended himself against allegations of accumulating aslush fund with his televised ‘‘Checkers’’ speech broadcast, essen-tially forcing Eisenhower to retain him on the Republican ticket.Though Nixon ably ran the federal government during Eisenho-wer’s health crises in each of 1955, 1956, and 1957, he remaineda controversial choice to stay on as the candidate for vice presidentin 1956. In fact, ironically, at the G.O.P. convention in August of1956, Eisenhower said, ‘‘I am not here going to attempt a eulogyof Mr. Nixon’’ before briefly stating his belief in Nixon’s dedi-cation, loyalty, and patriotism. Moreover, as Nixon himself ranfor president and lost in 1960 to Kennedy, Eisenhower showedtempered enthusiasm for Nixon’s candidacy and famously


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

struggled, though in a joking manner, to name decisionsNixon made as vice president. It is speculated that Nixon subse-quently blamed Eisenhower for his close loss. Finally, of course,Nixon’s daughter, Julie, married Eisenhower’s grandson, David,in 1968.

On March 30, 1969, eight years since he had retired from pub-lic service to his farm in Pennsylvania, Eisenhower was eulogizedby President Nixon (Medal of Freedom, 2005) in the CapitolRotunda during his state funeral. Nixon faced a country torn byinvolvement in the Vietnam War and social revolution, a starkcontrast to the years of peace and unity during Eisenhower’sadministration. Despite the peaks and valleys of theirrelationship and association, Nixon devotes much of the eulogyto honoring and praising Eisenhower’s accomplishments andstature.

War brings the names of many men into the headlines and of those somefew become national or even international heroes. But as the years thenpass, their fame goes down . . . But not so with Dwight Eisenhower. Asthe years passed, his stature grew: Commander of the mightiest expedition-ary force ever assembled; receiver of the surrender of the German armiesin World War II; President of Columbia University; Supreme Commanderof NATO; 34th President of the United States. The honors, the offices werethere in abundance. Every trust that the American people had in theirpower to bestow, he was given.

. . .we find ourselves today thinking, first, not of his deeds but of hischaracter. It was the character of the man, not what he did, but what hewas that so captured the trust and faith and affection of his own peopleand of the people of the world.

For eight years now, Dwight Eisenhower has neither commandedan army nor led a nation. And, yet, he remained through his final daysthe world’s most admired and respected man, truly the first citizen ofthe world.

Nixon deifies Eisenhower with allusion to his Godliness andhis providential destiny to be not just a leader, but the rightly selec-ted representative of America and its spiritual values.

Dwight Eisenhower touched something fundamental in America whichonly a man of immense force of mind and spirit could have brought sovibrantly alive. He was a product of America’s soil and of its ideals, drivenby a compulsion to do right and to do well; a man of deep faith whobelieved in God and trusted in His will; a man who truly loved his country


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and for whom the words ‘‘freedom’’ and ‘‘democracy’’ were not cliches, butthey were living truths.

His was the humility of man before God and before the truth.As Commander of the mightiest allied force ever assembled he was

the right man at the right place at the right time. And as president, onceagain, he was the right man at the right place and at the right time.

Nixon serves his eulogistic function as Consoler in Chiefalmost exclusively by providing many ‘‘insider’’ glimpses of Eisen-hower the man, thus affirming actual relationship to the deceasedand encouraging continued inner representations of him.

I remember, for example, just a few months ago when I asked all of themembers of the Cabinet to go out and call on him. Each of them returnedwith wonder and admiration and said, ‘‘You know, I went out there tocheer him up and instead I found he cheered me up.’’

I remember time after time, when critics of one sort or anotherwere misrepresenting him or reviling him, he would sit back in his chairand with that wonderful half-smile and half-frown, he would say, ‘‘I ampuzzled by those fellows’’. . . The last time I saw him that was what hetalked about.

And yet, of course, he was more than all of that. He had a side moreevident to those of us who worked with him than to the rest of the world.He was a strong man. He was shrewd. He was decisive. Time and again Ihave seen him make decisions that probably made the difference betweenwar and peace for America and the world.

Nixon’s reference to Eisenhower’s qualities as strong, shrewd,and decisive are the closest he comes to revealing shortcomings orflaws in his former boss’ character. One senses that Nixon wouldagree that Eisenhower could be calculating, stubborn, and evenimmovable but refrained from selecting such pejorative language.He also comforts audience members with the sort of positive reap-praisal that reminds others, even in their grief, to be thankful forthe opportunity they had to know and=or experience the deceasedand for the deceased to have lived a commendable life.

We mourn Dwight Eisenhower’s death, but we are grateful for his life.We gather, also, conscious of the fact that in paying tribute to Dwight

Eisenhower, we celebrate greatness.

As do most presidential eulogists, Nixon attempted to unifythe audience, himself, and the deceased with the use of ‘‘we’’ as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

evidenced above and by quoting Eisenhower, ‘‘A Londoner willfight and so will a citizen of Abilene. When we consider thesethings, then the Valley of the Thames draws closer to the farmsof Kansas and the plains of Texas.’’

The closest Nixon came to emoting, however, is his referenceto Eisenhower’s status in the world long after being in powerand that, ‘‘we marvel at this.’’ Nonetheless, the topic of emotionis addressed. In paying respects to Eisenhower’s ‘‘unique’’ qualitiesof greatness, Nixon made much of Eisenhower’s inability to hate ortake disagreement personally.

This feeling toward people had another side. In the political world, strongpassions are the norm and all too often these turn toward personal vindic-tiveness. People often disagreed with Dwight Eisenhower, but almostnobody ever hated him.

And this, I think, was because, he, himself, was a man who did notknow how to hate.

Oh, he could be aroused by a cause, but he could not hate a person.He could disagree strongly, even passionately, but never personally.

When people disagreed with him, he never thought of them asenemies. He simply thought, ‘‘Well, they don’t agree with me.’’

Coming from a president who had himself rebounded fromscandals, political loss, and virtual dismissal from public life, whodisplayed outward hostility to many of his adversaries, and whowas himself destined to be the only president so far to resign in dis-grace, the implied discouragement of hatefulness is ironic at thevery least. So is the fact that despite Nixon’s very recent inaugur-ation, a mere two months earlier, he does not pursue establishinghis own credibility as eulogizer or legitimacy as president, thoughhe presents himself as a participant in several of the portrayals ofprivate experiences with Eisenhower. Also interesting is that thecomplex relationship between Nixon and Eisenhower ends witha eulogy notable more for its prevalence of praise than its some-what limited, though effective, comforting mechanisms.

President William J. Clinton for President Richard M. Nixon

During his first and abbreviated second terms, President Nixonincreased and then terminated the country’s military involvementin Vietnam and improved relations with Asian nations while


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

turning back much of Johnson’s New Deal policies by vetoingwelfare, health, education, and other domestic social programsembodied in bills that came to his desk. Nixon left the office ofpresident on August 9, 1974 under three articles of impeachmentimposed by Congress on the basis of his role in the cover-upof the Watergate scandal, and lived almost 20 more years inCalifornia. During this time, he made yet another comeback, albeitan incomplete one, towards political statesmanship and respect-ability by writing several books featuring advice regarding foreigndiplomacy, details of his life, and defenses of his controversialactions. Though others such as Billy Graham, Henry Kissinger,and Robert Dole eulogized Nixon on April 27, 1994, onlyPresident William Clinton (Bill Clinton, n.d.) alluded to the prob-lematic aspects of Nixon’s career.

In fact, the predominant characteristic of Clinton’s relativelyshort eulogy was his deliberative rhetoric that also served asproblem-focused coping. Essentially, Clinton entreated Americansto remember and evaluate the whole of Nixon’s life and contri-butions, which included his writing ‘‘nine of his ten books afterhe left the presidency’’ and ‘‘working his way back into thearena he so loved by writing and thinking and engaging us in hisdialogue.’’

Today is a day for his family, his friends, and his nation to rememberPresident Nixon’s life in totality.

. . .may the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than hisentire life and career come to a close.

Another suggestion offered within the eulogy was a moretraditional manifestation of problem-focused coping with its callto enact a value of the deceased.

May we heed his call to maintain the will and the wisdom to build onAmerica’s greatest gift, its freedom, and to lead a world full of difficultyto the just and lasting peace he dreamed of.

Clinton also implored such re-evaluation in the form of theadoption of new and more positive reappraisals of Nixon’s mistakes.

As a public man, he always seemed to believe the greatest sin was remain-ing passive in the face of challenges, and he never stopped living by thatcreed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Oh, yes, he knew great controversy amid defeat as well as victory. Hemade mistakes, and they, like his accomplishments, are a part of his life andrecord. But the enduring lesson of Richard Nixon is that he never gave upbeing part of the action and passion of his times.

Unlike most reappraisals offered within eulogies, of course,these have more to do with the judgment of Nixon’s life than withany grief experienced as a result of his death. Nonetheless, theywere surely comforting to family, friends, and other citizens inattendance. Clinton made no mention of emotion, though he alsoconsoled with provision of a few private experiences and, thus,insights about Nixon.

For the past year, even in the final weeks of his life, he gave me his wisecounsel, especially with regard to Russia.

He said many times that unless a person has a goal, a new mountainto climb, his spirit will die. Well, based on our last phone conversation andthe letter he wrote me just a month ago, I can say that his spirit was verymuch alive to the very end.

Clinton clustered nearly all of his praise for Nixon togetherand in tandem with his efforts to change the public opinion ofNixon.

Though this man was in his ninth decade, he had an incredibly sharp andvigorous and rigorous mind. As a public man, he always seemed to believethe greatest sin was remaining passive in the face of challenges, and henever stopped living by that creed. He gave of himself with intelligenceand energy and devotion to duty. . .

Consistent with his attempt to soothe old wounds and bringNixon back into the legacy of American presidents, Clinton opensand closes the eulogy with statements that seemingly intend tounify the decedent with his country, eulogist, and colleagues.

President Nixon opened his memoirs with a simple sentence: ‘‘I was bornin a house my father built.’’ Today we can look back at this little house andstill imagine a young boy sitting by the window of the attic he shared withhis three brothers, looking out to a world he could then himself onlyimagine. From those humble roots, as from so many humble beginningsin this country, grew the force of a driving dream. A dream that led tothe remarkable journey that ends here today, where it all began besidethe same tiny home, mail-ordered from back East, near this toweringpepper tree, which back then was a mere seedling.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

And so, on behalf of all four former presidents who are here—President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush—andon behalf of a grateful nation, we bid farewell to Richard Milhous Nixon.

Perhaps aware that less Americans would be saddened withNixon’s passing than that of any other president, Clinton directsless attention than most eulogists at consolation, and more to arenewed review of the man’s character and role as a praiseworthyformer president. It is unsurprising that Clinton did not portrayNixon’s destiny or otherwise deify him in the sense that Daviesand others did for President Washington. Though Clinton is theonly selected eulogist to memorialize a member of the opposingpolitical party, and thus a man he did not work with or have muchprofessional proximity to, Nixon’s resignation surely is a greaterfactor in Clinton’s rhetorical decisions. Clinton’s emphasis on reap-praisal of, if not forgiveness for, Nixon’s errors seems to continuethe trend started by Nixon in his eulogy for Eisenhower. BothClinton (e.g., Whitewater, Paula Jones) and Nixon (slush fundallegations) had been previously plagued by scandal at the timethey delivered the selected eulogies, both later left office scarredby their actions that resulted in impeachment proceedings (i.e.,the Watergate cover-up by Nixon and the Monica Lewinskycover-up by Clinton), and both men’s reputations would profitby a national willingness to pardon and judge globally ratherthan hate.

President George W. Bush for President Ronald W. Reagan

Like Nixon, Reagan was removed from the public purview formany years after his presidency. At the time of his death, Reaganhad struggled privately with Alzheimer’s disease for over ten years.As eulogist and sitting president, George W. Bush noted, ‘‘we lostRonald Reagan only days ago, but we have missed him for a longtime’’ (‘‘President Bush’s Eulogy,’’ 2004). Reagan was a perfectembodiment of the American Dream, rising from a boyhood whenhis vision problems had been misunderstood as indicators of a les-sened mental faculty, to various manifestations as a lifeguard, base-ball game radio broadcaster, liberal minded B-list movie actor,staunch conservative governor of California and president of theUnited States of America. The tough guy persona Reagan created


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in several Western films was further exemplified by his foreign anddomestic policies, stubborn adherence to the ‘‘trickle down’’theory of economics later known as ‘‘Reaganomics,’’ and fierceopposition to the Soviet Union in the latter stages of the ColdWar. Of the many instances indicative of his administration, hemight be best remembered for demanding, ‘‘Mr. Gorbachev, teardown that (Berlin) wall!’’ His vice president, George HerbertWalker Bush, was the single-term 41st U.S. president and fatheredthe 43rd, George W. The younger Bush, widely known to haveidolized Reagan and his toughness, is said by some to haveobstinately pursued the war on Saddam Hussein and Iraq toboth avenge and better his father’s failed efforts to oust the despot.Bush has also made more religious connections and overtureswhile in office than most presidents, and surely the most sinceReagan.

Reagan’s passing was anticipated for quite some time, and theboth the craft and craftiness of Bush’s response may be partiallydue to the amount of time he and=or his writers had to prepareit. Not only is the speech itself a rhetorical hybrid, but so are theinstances of its main device. Again and again, Bush euphemisti-cally represents those of Reagan’s actions and values that are con-sistent with his own. The interpreted effect is the concurrent praiseof Reagan, justification of Bush’s own character, and deliberativepromotion of both past and present agendas. Some instances of thisfocused on religion.

(Reagan’s home) town was the kind of place you remember where youprayed side by side with your neighbors, and if things were going wrongfor them, you prayed for them, and knew they’d pray for you if things wentwrong for you.

And where does that strength come from? Where is that couragelearned? It is the faith of a boy who read the Bible with his mom. It isthe faith of a man lying in an operating room, who prayed for the onewho shot him before he prayed for himself. It is the faith of a man witha fearful illness, who waited on the Lord to call him home.

Bush also closed his eulogy with an explicit religious referenceto God, ‘‘May God bless Reagan’’ as do many presidentialorators and eulogists. Other instances of Bush endorsing bothReagan and himself referred to acting decisively and assuredlyfor policy and ideals such as the existence of freedom, liberty,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and capitalism around the world regardless of any opposition tosuch actions.

He was optimistic that a strong America could advance the peace, andhe acted to build the strength that mission required. He was optimistic thatliberty would thrive wherever it was planted, and he acted to defend libertywherever it was threatened.

President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economicreform, and he acted to restore the reward and spirit of enterprise.

Finally, one reference even defended Reagan’s (i.e., 335 days inSanta Barbara, California during eight years of presidency), andperhaps Bush’s (i.e., currently 326 full or partial days in Crawford,Texas during four and a half years of presidency), enjoyment ofvacation time from the White House.

And he believed in taking a break now and then, because, as he said,there’s nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse.

Bush also offered more straightforward praise of Reagan’sconsistent trustworthiness and optimism, as well as the sort ofdeification, noting both religious connections and destiny for great-ness, we have now come to expect of eulogies offered for and bypresidents.

Ronald Reagan believed that everything happened for a reason, and thatwe should strive to know and do the will of God.

As soon as Ronald Reagan became California’s governor, observerssaw a star in the West—tanned, well-tailored, in command, and on hisway. In the 1960 s, his friend, Bill Buckley, wrote, ‘‘Reagan is indisputablya part of America, and he may become a part of American history.’’

It is nearly eerie how perfectly, in the latter quote, Buckley assumesDavies’ role in prophesying the rise of a future president, andBush assumes the role of the echoing eulogist noted by Berens(1977).

To the loss of such a laudable figure as Reagan, who definedhis era and also delivered the occasionally spectacular eulogywhile in office (see Kunkel & Dennis, 2003 and Dennis & Kunkel,2004), Bush directs a suitable set of consolatory devices. Mostnumerous of these is the positive reappraisal, which is offered toremind all of Reagan’s happy life, and of both the acceptance of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

death and its role as but a stage in the pursuit of an even betterafterlife.

In a life of good fortune, he valued above all the gracious gift of his wife,Nancy. During his career, Ronald Reagan passed through a thousandcrowded places; but there was only one person, he said, who could makehim lonely by just leaving the room.

Americans saw death approach Ronald Reagan twice, in a moment ofviolence, and then in the years of departing light. He met both with courageand grace. In these trials, he showed how a man so enchanted by life can beat peace with life’s end.

Now, death has done all that death can do. And as Ronald WilsonReagan goes his way, we are left with the joyful hope he shared. In his lastyears, he saw through a glass darkly. Now he sees his Savior face to face.

Bush even implicitly promised that our respective relation-ships with Reagan will not only continue in the future, but will alsofeature the best qualities of our pasts with him.

And we look to that fine day when we will see him again, all wearinessgone, clear of mind, strong and sure, and smiling again, and the sorrowof his parting gone forever.

Nonetheless, according to Bush, negative emotions shouldrightfully have been stirred by Reagan’s passing and he bothshared in, and expressed, them.

We have missed his kindly presence, that reassuring voice, and the happyending we had wished for him. It has been ten years since he said his ownfarewell; yet it is still very sad and hard to let him go. Ronald Reaganbelongs to the ages now, but we preferred it when he belonged to us.

. . .but with Ronald Reagan’s passing, some very fine days are behindus, and that is worth our tears.

Finally, besides emotion, Bush shared one anecdote aboutReagan that revealed his humor, sense of irony, and humanity,thus promoting further our inner representations and continuedrelationships with the dead president.

A boy once wrote to him requesting federal assistance to help clean up hisbedroom. (Laughter.) The president replied that, ‘‘unfortunately, funds aredangerously low.’’ (Laughter.) He continued, ‘‘I’m sure your mother wasfully justified in proclaiming your room a disaster. Therefore, you are in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

an excellent position to launch another volunteer program in our nation.Congratulations.’’ (Laughter.)

Discussion

As expected, the analysis of a selection of contemporary eulogiesof presidents by presidents, as informed by the integrative frame-work and the notions of eulogies as both rhetorical hybrids andsites of presidential deification, has produced sharper understand-ing and appreciation of the ‘‘idiosyncratic as well as the recurrent’’(Jamieson & Campbell, 1982, p. 157) features and strategies of theexemplars. All of the deceased presidents were praised and the life-long destinies, if not religiously ordained ascensions to office, ofmost were proclaimed. Every one of the featured eulogists pro-vided multiple positive reappraisals of the death, and sometimesthe life, of the decedent; probably so as to assuage the immediategrief of their audiences. All but Clinton expressed their emotion,often as shared by the bereaved audiences. Most also shared per-sonal anecdotes or insights, devices by which listeners can affirmmore personal connections, if not outright relationships, to the lostpresident and keep him accessible in their current and futurethoughts. The eulogies obviously served what Jamieson andCampbell called their ‘‘eulogistic requirements’’ and what theintegrative framework for analysis of eulogies recognizes as theirconsolatory functions.

For the most part, this subset of presidential eulogies maybe labeled as rhetorical hybrids. The presidential eulogists, otherthan Nixon, delivered heavy doses of overtly deliberative rhetoric,though Bush seems to have couched advocacy of his own characterand action within praise of Reagan. As Jamieson and Campbell(1982) observed and explained, Johnson, in particular, detailed anextraordinary amount of policies he intended to pursue because, asan ascendant vice president, his presidential administration wasonly beginning. In fact, the current analysis may be said to refuteJamieson and Campbell’s assertion that Johnson privileges theeulogistic form over the deliberative, as he should have. Johnsonoffered nearly three dozen glimpses into his legislative plans, manymore than his dozen or so reappraisals and statements of emotion.Then again, consistent with the integrative framework, whenagenda-oriented suggestions are offered in these speeches, they


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

alone may even be classified as hybrids since they address bothdeliberative and consolatory (i.e., problem-focused coping) pur-poses. In that light, Jamieson and Campbell’s claim is validated.Moreover, Bush’s eulogy of Reagan may even be considered botha micro- and macro-level hybrid, as each instance of like-mindedpraise builds Reagan’s legacy and Bush’s political capital.

In most respects, the selected eulogies emulated eulogies bypresidents for heroes and victims (Dennis & Kunkel, 2004), moreso than the set of contemporary eulogies profiled to elucidate theintegrative framework originally (Kunkel & Dennis, 2003). Unlikemost eulogies, but similar to those for heroes, the set of eulogiesexamined in this work featured absolutely no portrayal of thedeceased’s shortcomings or flaws. Nixon’s possible, and fullyveiled, allusion to the headstrong characteristics of Eisenhower isthe nearest these eulogists come to such a reference. As positedby Dennis and Kunkel, an important factor in these omissions isthe solemnity inherent in the rhetorical contexts. Nixon alsooffered the most praise and references to his predecessor’s destinyas a great American figure. The long and complex relationshipNixon had with Eisenhower (e.g., two terms as his vice president;bitterness about limited campaign endorsement; marriage of theirdescendants) helps to explain the abundance of praise and deifi-cation, though the extent to which it was either heartfelt or deemedpolitically necessary by Nixon is difficult to discern.

Also consistent with presidential eulogies for tragic victims,none of the presidential eulogists spoke directly to their dead pre-decessors in the present tense or otherwise. Perhaps, as previouslyasserted (Kunkel & Dennis, 2003), the general lack of efforts toestablish credibility as eulogist in this selection of eulogies is dueto the obvious qualification to do so as president. However, estab-lishing one’s own legitimacy as president appeared to be a chiefconcern of Johnson as ‘‘an assassin’s bullet’’ had just ‘‘thrust upon’’him ‘‘the awesome burden of the presidency.’’ Also, Bush bor-rowed from the popularity of Reagan’s character and actions toconfirm his own, while both Nixon and Clinton appear to havelobbied for more positive assessments of their past and futureactions in public office.

Presidential eulogies for public figures of any type have nowbeen shown to differ from eulogies offered by less noteworthy ora-tors in several smaller ways. In both the current analysis and that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

by Dennis and Kunkel (2004), statements of unity between rhetor,audience, and=or the deceased have been fairly common. God isalso frequently invoked, usually in the concluding sections of theseeulogies. Finally, presidents may note the inadequacy of theirwords for healing, despite the likelihood that their speeches areimmensely helpful to bereaved audiences. Statements likeJohnson’s ‘‘no words are sad enough’’ and ‘‘no words are strongenough’’ in the Kennedy eulogy, and Clinton’s ‘‘the limits of ourpoor words’’ for the families of those lost on the USS Cole, maybe in response to the immense sadness of tragedy. However,Jamieson and Campbell (1982) claim that Johnson’s statementsalso deflate judgments of him as overeager to assume power, andserve to further warrant political action as proper memorializationof Kennedy.

Communication scholars, grief theorists, and therapists shouldcontinue to consider the healing properties of eulogies; as well asthe legacy of those for, and by, presidents, as appropriate vehiclesfor furthering limited rhetorical and political goals. Future analysesmay be well advised to expand the population of examinedeulogies to a global scope, so that the extent to which this researchprogram’s observations are artifacts of largely American samplesmay be ascertained. To date, the program has examined onlyeulogies for Princess Diana and Yitzhak Rabin as examples ofinternational address (see Kunkel & Dennis, 2003). Researchersare welcomed to subject sets of eulogies from abroad, for and by bothpublic figures and common citizens, for similar analysis, insightfulcomparison, and further elucidation of the integrative framework.

References

Attig, T. (1996). How we grieve: Relearning the world. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Berens, J. F. (1977). Like a prophetic spirit: Samuel Davies, American eulogists,and the deification of George Washington. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63,290–297.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1–14.Bush, G. W. (2004). ‘‘President Bush’s Eulogy at Funeral Service for President

Reagan’’. Retrieved February 12, 2006 from The White House site:http:==www.whitehouse.gov=news=releases=2004=06=20040611-2.html.

Clinton, B. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2006 from Faculty of Arts onlinesite: http:==teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au=history=hsty3080=StudentWebSites=nixon%200bits=source4#clintonlink4.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Dennis, M. R. & Kunkel, A. D. (2004). Fallen heroes, lifted hearts: Consolation incontemporary Presidential eulogia. Death Studies, 28(8), 703–731.

Harber, K. D. & Pennebaker, J. W. (1992). Overcoming traumatic memories. InS. A. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and memory: Research andtheory (pp. 359–387). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jamieson, K. H. & Campbell, K. K. (1982). Rhetorical hybrids: Fusions of genericelements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 146–157.

Johnson, L. B. (n.d). ‘‘Let us Continue’’. Retrieved February 12, 2006 fromAmerican Rhetoric site: http:==www.americanrhetoric.com=speeches=lbjletuscontinue.html.

Kunkel, A. D. & Dennis, M. R. (2003). Grief consolation in eulogy rhetoric:An integrative framework. Death Studies, 27(1), 1–38.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Medal of Freedom. (2005). Retrieved February 12, 2006 from Medal of Freedom

site: http:==www.medaloffreedom.com=DwightEisenhower.htm.Neimeyer, R. A. (1998). Lessons of loss: A guide to coping. New York: McGraw-Hill.Neimeyer, R. A. (2001a). Introduction: Meaning reconstruction and loss. In R. A.

Neimeyer (Ed.), Meaning reconstruction & the experience of loss (pp. 1–9).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Neimeyer, R. A. (Ed.). (2001b). Meaning reconstruction & the experience of loss.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Putting stress into words: Health, linguistic, and thera-peutic implications. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 31, 539–548.

Silverman, P. R. & Nickman, S. L. (1996). Concluding thoughts. In D. Klass, P. R.Silverman, & S. L. Nickman (Eds.), Continuing bonds: New understandings ofgrief (pp. 349–355). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:09

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

grief, glory, and political capital in the capitol: presidents eulogizing presidents

Documents