Is It Fair to Conclude That, in Relation to These Presidents and in This Overview, Style Was More Important Than Substance? (20)
Style Vs Substance Is it fair to conclude that, in relation to these presidents and in this overview, style was more important than substance? (20)Over the period of 1932-1974 there were 6 presidents; Franklin D Roosevelt; Harry S Truman; Dwight D Eisenhower; John F Kennedy; Lyndon B Johnson and Richard M Nixon. The ways of which they presented themselves and the style of which they had changed and became a greater factor to the success of the president. This went hand in hand with the developments of technology that America experienced over the period, going from radio broadcasted election campaigns, through to televised campaigns broadcasted on not just national but also global scale in colour. But which was more important a presidents style or what they achieved?  Franklin D Roosevelt won the election mainly due to the situation plaguing the American-The Great Depression. Yes, Roosevelt achieved an astonishing level of success during his period but it wasn’t just down to congress’ leniency, it was about how he was and who he was as a person. FDR’s election campaign was fully broadcasted over radio and for the first time people were able to realise how much of a bore Herbert Hoover really was. It was a massive attraction of FDR, in how he knew how to use media to his advantage and thus due to his charisma he was able to appeal even more to the American people and again the public support for his policies. Also he had the support of congress, which not only comes down to the majority but also to the style of president and due to him having both in his favour FDR was able to pass many acts through Congress. So in all FDR’s style was very important and it assisted what he was able to achieve, so in concerns to FDR, his style was more important than his substance.
Next in line was Harry S Truman, in terms of foreign policies and affairs Truman was heavily involved and made some serious decisions which changed the world forever. Such actions as dropping the two atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima which lead to years of fear in terms of nuclear holocaust, the start of the Cold War, lead to a period of extreme communist hate known as McCarthyism and then also the Korean War. But due to his style it was hard for him to stay in a positive light even though he effectively ended World War 2, created NATO and passed the G.I. bills. He wasn’t very charismatic, lacked confidence and was in essence the complete opposite of what people were used to in Roosevelt. Truman didn’t use the media as effectively as FDR and left the general public generally uninformed, whereas in comparison to Roosevelt who made sure people knew about his plans. He found it difficult to communicate his ideas and made some serious mistakes whilst giving speeches, such as racist remarks and countless number of stutters. These both link to connotations of a weak president. Additionally Truman didn’t work well with Congress and didn’t get nearly as much passed as FDR did; this also came down to his lack of charisma and charm. So in the case of Truman it seemed to be that his substance and what he achieved or did was far more important that his style because his style was very poor, especially in comparison to FDR but also in sense quite corrupt, due to his favouritism in the judicial appointments.