Presidential Legitimacy Rhetoric: Content, Context, and Consequences

Scholars, journalists, and politicians speak frequently about the legitimacy of political institutions; yet there is little known about the precise elements that comprise the concept of legitimacy. I draw from a broad literature across the social sciences to present a coherent, multi-dimensional theory of legitimacy. I advance also a theory of presidential legitimacy rhetoric, arguing that presidents will use legitimacy rhetoric most when prompted by crisis conditions or in precedential contexts which mandate the use of language on institutions' legitimacy. Using text analysis on presidential speeches from 1961-2022, I demonstrate that presidents have indeed used legitimacy rhetoric more frequently during periods of crisis. I find subsequently, with original survey experiment data, that presidential legitimacy rhetoric has a significant impact on public attitudes, though not in the direction of the president's remarks. This dissertation therefore contributes to extant literature on presidential leadership by producing original evidence that presidents are largely defensive and limited actors in the U.S. political system, frequently turning to legitimacy rhetoric to exploit existing political conditions yet nevertheless typically unable to shift public opinion to fit their own views.