The biggest losers: Legacy, exigence, and apologia in presidential farewell addresses

Abstract

AbstractCampbell and Jamieson and Medhurst's foundational works on presidential farewell addresses assert that the form creates a sense of continuity, progressive perfection, and pedagogical affirmation and adapts to personal and situational exigencies to define a personal and administrative legacy for the outgoing president, as evidenced by the oft‐celebrated addresses of Washington and Eisenhower. However, at times these constraints are difficult to manage, particularly in the case of incumbents who were soundly denied a second term because of questionable administrative choices. In such cases, rhetors often turn to generic hybrids, combining forms and functions of different addresses to attend to complicated exigencies and audiences. The cases considered here infused the farewell's form with apologia, a speech of self‐defense, resulting in an inward‐focused address that failed to resolve important legacies. Examining the farewell addresses of three of the biggest electoral losers in history provides insight into the impacts these choices have on presidential legacy.