Notwithstanding Richard Neustadt's assertion that presidential power is the power to persuade, Arthur demonstrates empirically that presidents are not very effective when they attempt to persuade key economic actors. Relying on content analysis of speeches, Arthur examines presidential rhetoric and its effect on the economy. While presidents have increasingly tried to use persuasion to build support for their policies, the author finds that rhetoric has little impact on the Federal Reserve's actions, Congress, or the public's perceptions of the economy. Indeed, the author suggests that congressional committees may have more influence over the Fed than the president. Arthur also finds, paradoxically, that presidents are often less likely to talk about the economy when times are bad (Barack Obama being a notable exception). Arthur concludes that 'presidential rhetoric on the economy is, at best, a tool presidents use to appear concerned about the economy to everyone and toeing the party-line to their base.' This work provides empirical evidence to support what many have long suspected: that presidential talks about the economy are just talk. Summing Up:Recommended. Upper-division undergraduate, graduate, and research collections.
