Fame, Celebrity, and the Legacy of John Adams

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

Fame, Celebrity, and the Legacy of John Adams Trevor Parry-Giles This essay examines the attempts by historian David McCullough in legislative hearings, media interviews, and with his famous biography of John Adams to rescue the second president 9s legacy. Specifically, the essay contends that McCullough 9s discourse cham- pioning Adams promotes this founder 9s celebrity rather than his meritorious fame, and in so doing violates the very understandings of fame and renown so central to Adams 9s conceptions of political motivation. Ultimately, the essay reads McCullough 9s attempts to memorialize Adams against Adams 9s theories of fame and political psychology, revealing what Adams 9s approach to political motivation says about the state of contemporary political rhetoric.

Keywords: Celebrity; Collective Memory; David McCullough; Fame; John Adams; Nostalgia Fame, Celebrity, and the Legacy of John Adams Perhaps it is because of the jarring events of September 11, 2001, or perhaps it is an outgrowth of the Clinton scandals and the Bush prevarications, but for whatever reason, the United States is, once again, in a period of Founders nostalgia. New biographies of the likes of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin appear regularly on the bestseller lists. These treatments are profiled on the cover ... more. less.

of national news magazines. Their authors are featured on cable television and on talk radio. Documentaries and fictional treatments of the lives of the Founders are found on cable television, in theaters, and on DVDs in video stores across the country. The Founders are everywhere. Trevor Parry-Giles is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Mary- land. The author thanks Bruce Gronbeck and James Farrell for their comments on an earlier draft of this essay and anonymous reviewers for their comments and insights. Correspondence to: Trevor Parry-Giles, Communi- cation, University of Maryland, 2130 Skinner Building, College Park, MD 20742-7635, USA. E-mail: tpg@ umd.edu Western Journal of Communication Vol. 72, No. 1, January 3March 2008, pp. 83 3101 ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) # 2008 Western States Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/10570310701827596 An outgrowth of our collective nostalgia for the Founders (as well as other impor- tant historical figures) is the ongoing attempt to memorialize and commemorate their legacies. A stroll through Philadelphia, for instance, offers numerous commem- orations of Benjamin Franklin. And alongside the colossus of Abraham Lincoln in the nation 9s capital are the two monuments to the most preeminent of the Founders, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, Washington, DC 9s gift shops and souvenir stands are a lingering testimony to the power of these Founders 9 legacies for the nation 9s collective imagination. In his assessment of George Washington 9s legacy, historian Forrest McDonald writes that our first president 8 8differed from ordinary mortals by picking a pro- gression of characters during his lifetime, each nobler and grander than the last, and by playing each so well that he ultimately transformed himself into a man of extrahuman virtue 9 9 (217). 1 Washington occupies a revered place in US political life and culture; he remains first in the hearts of his country. Similarly, even with contin- ued controversy and turmoil regarding historical fact and the lingering sting of slavery, Thomas Jefferson is central to the 8 8political philosophy and civic identity 9 9 of the United States (Vivian, 8 8Jefferson 9s Other 9 9 285). In 2001, a concerted effort began to expand this vision of the nation 9s founding by adding John Adams. This attempt is revealing for the tensions that emerge between a vision of fame and distinction rooted in merit and public virtue and the power of celebrity as guided by visibility and affectivity. Were John Adams alive today, he might be distressed to see his historical legacy and our collective memory of him defined less by the merit of his actions and decisions and more by affective rhetorics of pity, oversight, and love 4 a memory of celebrity more than a memory of substance and accomplish- ment. Yet, in some measure because of the renewal of his celebrity, House Resolution 1668 became Public Law 107-62 on November 5, 2001, to 8 8authorize the Adams Memorial Foundationtoestablish a commemorativeworkonFederal landintheDistrict of Columbia and its environs to honor former President John Adams and his legacy. 9 9 Though not much has happened in the effort to construct the Adams Memorial, the endeavor to secure passage of the legislation, along with the general resurrection of Adams 9s memory, is a fascinating episode in the development of collective memory in a contemporary mediated environment. This essay pays particular attention to the role and rhetoric of historian David McCullough in the effort to memorialize John Adams. Both in the legislative process to achieve passage of the Adams memorial and through his famous, Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Adams, McCullough actively sought the rescue of the second president 9s legacy and to secure his place among the memorials of the nation 9s capital and in the nation 9s collective memory. Of course, David McCullough is not the only, nor the first, author to pen a praise- worthy biography of a historical figure. McCullough is, in fact, all too typical of a ongoing trend in history and biography where some historians translate their explorations for popular audiences and work comfortably within the contemporary mass media. Television networks forge contracts with presidential historians like Michael Beschloss, Douglas Brinkley, and Doris Kearns Goodwin that allow them to peddle their books via the networks 9 news programs while also giving the networks 84 T. Parry-Giles ready access to commentary about all matters historical and biographical about our chief executives. McCullough works comfortably in this context, appearing on many media outlets when he writes a new book and functioning as a celebrity in his own right. Even more than his contemporaries, and perhaps because of his background as an English major and his compelling narratives, McCullough 9s biographies and histories are frequently the genesis of media treatments of their subjects, with HBO offering a film rendition of his biography of Harry S. Truman and preparing a miniseries for broadcast in 2008 of his biography of John Adams. While David McCullough exemplifies a trend in the contemporary mass-mediated translation of history and biography, his role in the rescue of John Adams 9s historical legacy is also specific and unique. McCullough diligently sought to take his biography into the public realm to influence collective memory and public policy. As Congress discussed the propriety of yet another memorial in the nation 9s capital, McCullough testified and influenced the debate, borrowing extensively from his personal celebrity and expertise in the process. McCullough 9s historical intervention in public debates about John Adams is also compelling for its use of particular discourses, or the rhe- torical grammars he employed in the formation of Adams 9s collective memory. Specifically, I argue that McCullough 9s discourse championing Adams promoted this founder 9s celebrity rather than his meritorious fame, and in so doing violated the very understandings of fame and renown so central to Adams 9s conceptions of political motivation. It is this rhetorical interplay between the historian and his subject that makes McCullough 9s discussions of John Adams so interesting as an instantiation of collec- tive memory. Paying particular attention to how rhetorical actors like David McCullough participate in the formation of collective memory using the rhetorical techniques and topics of contemporary political discourse, especially in comparison to the Revolutionary-era political theories of John Adams on fame, celebrity and renown, provides a fascinating glimpse into the evolution of political and memory rhetorics in a contemporary mass-mediated environment. 2 As a drafter of the Declaration of Independence, a diplomat, a vice president, and as president, Adams 9s reputation, his legacy, often are eclipsed by his contemporaries, including Washington, Franklin, Jefferson. But as a political philosopher, John Adams may have been the most prescient of the entire group. While he stands out in his other roles, Adams was a 8 8political philosopher of authentic power and range, 9 9 notes Joseph Dorfman (227). 3 His Defence of the Constitution , his authorship of the Massachusetts state constitution, his insights into political philosophy and psychology all justify Adams 9s reputation as one of the 8 8principal figures of the American founding, 9 9 who Bruce Miroff concludes can 8 8serve as a guide to the lineaments of an American leadership grounded in genuinely political passions and commitments 9 9 (52). Central to Adams 9s political philosophy, to his explanations about American political leadership, was his belief that an overriding political motiv- ation was the quest for fame. Ultimately, I read McCullough 9s attempts to memor- ialize Adams against Adams 9s own theories of fame and political psychology, revealing what Adams 9s approach to political motivation says about the state of Western Journal of Communication 85 contemporary political rhetoric and our collective tendencies to memorialize and commemorate the past in nostalgic, celebritized ways. Collective Memory and the Grammars of Celebrity Culture Collective memory, as defined by Barbie Zelizer, 8 8refers to the recollections that are instantiated beyond the individual by and for the collective 9 9 (214). Distinguished from the academic study of history, concerned as it is with 8 8legitimacy based on research norms, 9 9 collective memory instead 8 8is an overtly political and emotionally invested phenomenon, 9 9 notes Carole Blair (53). It is, moreover, 8 8partial and material in its communication and demarcation of the past 9 9 (Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles 418). Rhetors engaged in the process of collective memory, in its formation and com- munication to a larger public, are rhetorical actors making significant rhetorical choices. They cannot possibly account for the entirety of the past in their version of that past. Instead, they must select and omit, emphasize and elide in their rendi- tions of memory. To this extent, the process of forming and articulating collective memory is a supremely political act, an act that has meaningful ideological power. Not surprisingly, Stephen Browne reveals that 8 8public memory gets performed within contexts of power and aspirations so routinely that its political character cannot be missed 9 9 (466) 4 Browne 9s insight emphasizes the 8 8contexts of power and aspirations 9 9 in which collective memory occurs. Centrally important in this context is the struggle to 8 8claim an authoritative voice in collectively remembering 9 9 the past (Zelizer 225). While everyone, to some extent, may participate in the production of memory, the production of collective memory does not occur equally. As Zelizer suggests, 8 8some people actively construct memories, while others perform activities that are crucial to their transmission, retention, or contestation 9 9 (230). These strug- gles can evolve into what Evitar Zerubavel calls 8 8mnemonic battles 9 9 that remind us that 8 8our recollections of the past are by no means objective, as we clearly do not all remember it the same way 9 9 (2). In the case of the Founders, there is an ongoing and active attempt to construct and transmit their collective memory, from the shops of the nation 9s capital to the biographies and histories at the nation 9s bookstores. Voices like those of H. W. Brands, Ron Chernow, Walter Issacson, and David McCullough are among the most authoritative in the performance of this collective memory 4 they prevail in the struggle to establish authority in this particular realm of collective remembrance. Historically reviving the legacy and memory of John Adams, though, was a diffi- cult task given his relative obscurity to most Americans. As a one-term president sandwiched between the glories of Washington and Jefferson, as the president who signed the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, as the leader who seemed pre-occupied with titles and questions of nobility (Dorfman; Hutson 30 339), as the revolutionary figure lampooned as a loud-mouthed, arrogant snob, John Adams suffered from a lackluster historical reputation. That would change, in some measure, with the publication of David McCullough 9s 2001 biography, John Adams . A national bestseller 86 T. Parry-Giles and Pulitzer Prize-winning book, John Adams was advertised as a 8 8powerful, epic biography 9 9 and 8 8history on a grand scale. 9 9 McCullough 9s biography of Adams reveals the central importance of the choices and grammars invoked by those rhetors with the power and authority to articulate collective memory for public audiences. Our collective memories, Bradford Vivian reminds us, are nomadic such that 8 8we may remember the same events over and over again, but we remember them according to fluctuating conditions, in different times and places, in response to changing needs and desires 9 9 ( 8 8A Timeless Now 9 9 190). Similarly, different times and contexts bring forth different rhetorical grammars for the construction of collective memory. In this way, just as collective memories themselves are nomadic, so too are the frameworks, the rhetorical domains and tech- niques that express and communicate them. These grammars form a part of what Zerubavel calls mnemonic socialization, where 8 8remembering is also governed by unmistakably social norms of remembrance 9 9 that indicate what and how the past should be recalled and used (5, emphasis in original). Read critically, McCullough 9s vision of Adams emerges as revisionist biography bordering on hagiography. McCullough 9s regard for Adams is apparent throughout the work, from his approbation of Adams 9s determination during his time as a diplomat in Europe to his appreciation for Adams 9s presidential efforts to preserve peace with France. For instance, McCullough reports at length on a loan from Holland, secured by Adams for the young United States in 1782. An 8 8all-important beginning, 9 9 this loan represented 8 8money desperately needed at home and a foundation for American credit in Europe. 9 9 Moreover, with this action, Adams 8 8had indeed succeeded brilliantly, as others and history would attest 9 9 (271 372). Similarly, in recounting Adams 9s role as president, securing peace with France was deemed the 8 8proudest 9 9 achievement of his presidency. In what must surely count as pure adulation, McCullough writes of the Adams presidency: Subjected to some of the most malicious attacks ever endured by a president, beset by personal disloyalty and political betrayal, suffering the loss of his mother, the near death of his wife, the death of a son, tormented by physical ailments, he had more than weathered the storm. His bedrock integrity, his spirit of indepen- dence, his devotion to country, his marriage, his humor, and a great underlying love of life were all still very much intact (567). Tellingly, McCullough is quick to explain away the most pernicious legacy of the Adams administration, the Alien and Sedition Acts. Most of Adams 9s other biogra- phers are quite circumspect in their assessment of his role in the passage and enforce- ment of these acts. Bruce Miroff, for example, argues that Adams 8 8was culpable both in creating the bellicose political climate that made the acts possible and in authoriz- ing prosecutions under their aegis 9 9 (78). 8 8Historians have disagreed, 9 9 writes Ralph Adams Brown, 8 8about John Adams 9s personal attitude toward the legislation . . . and there seems no certainty of his position 9 9 (124). And John Patrick Diggins, also reflecting on the historical uncertainty about Adams 9s role in the Alien and Sedition Acts, identifies the Acts as 8 8one moment of deep regret, an action that might have been avoided, one that backfired and played into the hands of the opposition 9 9 (110). Western Journal of Communication 87 McCullough expresses little of the ambivalence and uncertainty of his fellow historians in his revision of Adams 9s role in the enactment and enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Noting that Adams 8 8had not asked for or encouraged 9 9 the Acts 9 passage, McCullough condemns 8 8their passage and his signature on them 9 9 as 8 8the most reprehensible acts of his presidency. 9 9 Yet in the very next sentence, McCullough gives Adams an escape 4 8 8Still, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 must be seen in the context of the time, and the context was tumult and fear. 9 9 McCullough explicitly accepts Adams 9s view that the Acts were 8 8war measures 9 9 and he concludes that 8 8the United States was at war 4 declared or not 4 and there were in fact numbers of enemy agents operating in the country. 9 9 Arguing, along with Adams that the Acts improved 8 8on the existing common law in that proof of the truth of the libel could be used as a legitimate defense, 9 9 McCullough notes that George Washington supported the attacks on some publications and that Jefferson 8 8having no wish to be present for the inevitable passage of the Sedition Act . . . quietly packed and went home to Monticello. 9 9 Ultimately, McCullough concludes that it might have been Abigail Adams who 8 8could well have been decisive in persuading Adams to support the Sedition Act 9 9 while Adams 8 8appears to have said nothing on the subject at the time 9 9 (504 307). In McCullough 9s assessment of his presidency, Adams implicitly joins Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt, who interred thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II, as presidents forced to enact unpopular and unconstitutional measures during times of war. Furthermore, McCullough makes Adams a reluctant participant in the story of the Alien and Sedition Acts, spurred on by his Federalist comrades in Congress, fearful of lurking enemy spies in the streets of Philadelphia, and manipulated by his wife who feared for her husband 9s reputation. Indeed, there is little else in John Adams that most clearly demonstrates McCullough 9s overt attempt to transform the public reputation and to shape the collective memory of his subject than in the discussion of the Alien and Sedition Acts. David McCullough 9s account of the life of John Adams figured prominently in the refashioning of the collective memory of this important American personage and it is not surprising that McCullough would also play a pivotal role in the public delibera- tions about a proposed Adams Memorial. What is surprising was the way McCullough sought to establish Adams 9s reputation. As he worked for greater his- torical visibility for John Adams, greater appreciation for Adams 9s contributions to the nation 9s founding, McCullough frequently relied on affective rhetorics of praise and admiration that dominate contemporary celebrity politics. Historical Celebrity and the Legacy of John Adams The Romans called it fama , or celebritas , and it was a decidedly indistinct term in that ancient society. 5 In classical Latin, as Chris Rojek reveals, the root term for celebrity was celebrem 8 8which has connotations with both 8fame 9 and 8being thronged 9 9 9 (9). Though transient, the idea of 8 8celebrity 9 9 is a cornerstone of contemporary American 88 T. Parry-Giles life, just as the Romans were 8 8animated by the urge for fame, [where] the definition of achievement was almost entirely oriented toward public behavior. 9 9 Leo Braudy notes, 8 8Fame for publicaction was so important to the Romans,as it wasto the Home- ric Greeks, because in a religion without a developed concept of the afterlife it was the only way to live beyond death 9 9 (17). The cultural preoccupation with the deaths, especially the premature or suspicious demise of contemporary public figures, enacts a similar celebrity afterlife at work in contemporary times. Such roots are important because they 8 8indicate a relationship in which a person is marked out as possessing singularity, and a social structure in which the character of fame is fleeting 9 9 (Rojek 9). The present-day concept of 8 8celebrity 9 9 began in the late eighteenth century, according to Thomas Baker. Baker discovers the roots of 8 8a self-sustaining culture of celebrity 9 9 in the period from 1790 to 1830 when 8 8the market for access to renown . . . assumed an enhanced scope and intensity, 9 9 most clearly evidenced by the popularity of autographs (7). 6 Of course, Baker 9s conclusions speak to the power of celebrity in the early years of the American nation, when the Founders were presidents and the founding period was slowly becoming the stuff of collective mem- ory. By the twentieth century, Hollywood and network television capitalized on an extant celebrity culture and moved the construction of celebrities to a new level (Dixon; Fowles). These media celebrities became, in the words of Guy Debord, 8 8spec- tacular representations of living human beings, distilling the essence of the spectacle 9s banality into images of possible roles 9 9 (38). Now, celebrities and their plentiful public discourse significantly define our culture. Celebrities are venerated not because of the rational power of their discourse, not because of the intelligence of their arguments, or even the worthiness of their accom- plishments, but because they provoke highly affective reactions from audiences and from the larger culture. As such, celebrity power is both strong and illusory because contemporary celebrities exist in a state of ambiguity. Celebrities rise and fall quickly, are the subject of both reverence and ridicule, and are pawns in larger social, econ- omic, and media systems over which they may or may not possess control. As Joshua Gamson reveals, celebrity culture, or the discourse that creates celebrity, is character- ized by: 8 8the trivialization of endeavor, commitment, and action; visibility as its own reward; the elimination of distinctions between deserving and undeserving people; the seductive replacement of real life with artificial image; and the increased inability to make such distinctions 9 9(10). Ultimately, as P. David Marshall suggests, 8 8the concept of celebrity is best defined as a system for valorizing meaning and communication 9 9 (x). It is the process by which such valorization occurs that is of profound significance for contemporary communication inquiry. Of more interest than what celebrities actually say is the process by which an individual comes to occupy celebrity status and to command celebrity attention. In addition, as Greg Siegworth argues, contemporary celebrity culture requires the celebrity to engage in his or her own celebritization and to auth- enticate such rhetorics for the larger public (307). Political and historical leaders are constructed according to the systems of dis- course commonly found in celebrity culture. 7 8 8Celebrityhood pervades the political Western Journal of Communication 89 process, 9 9 conclude Darrell West and John Orman in their text on the subject, 8 8from campaigns and elections to governing, lobbying, and legislating 9 9 (ix). When political celebritization occurs, the 8 8symbolic content of the political leader as commodity arises primarily from the similar groundwork of common cultural sentiments 9 9 (Marshall 214). Cultural myths, legends, narratives, and tokens dominate the celeb- ritization of the individual political leader, allowing audiences, as citizens and voters, to access familiar rhetorics in their evaluation of the proffered individual. The same grammars may also dominate the creation of the collective memory of historical figures. David Lusted reveals that the dominant cultural myths at work in the construction of celebrities are grounded in competing conceptions of the individual. The first myth 8 8stresses individual achievement through personal effort and competition, 9 9 while the second is a 8 8folk myth . . . in which the individual succeeds through nature or fate, rather than effort, position, or circumstance 9 9 (251). Regardless of the actual myth employed in the celebritization process, its preeminent locus of motiv- ation is affective rather than deliberative. As Marshall notes, 8 8Affect moves the polit- ical debate from the realm of reason to the realm of feeling and sentiment. 9 9 Moreover, through such affect, the political and historical celebrity 8 8functions as a legitimating apparatus for the symbolic representation of the people 9 9 (240). Affectiv- ity, thus, becomes the measure of successful celebritization. And it is affect that is presented through this process as the preferred mode of deliberation and decision- making 4 the basis of political judgment becomes feeling and emotion, not rationality or reasonability. Put another way, as does Gamson, 8 8the 8politics of person- ality, 9 commonly opposedto the 8politics ofsubstance, 9 hasbecomeinstitutionalized in contemporary American politics. 9 9 Furthermore, that political system 8 8mimics, and sometimes borrows techniques directly from, entertainment celebrity 9 9 (189). Called to testify before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands in the US House of Representatives, David McCullough unabashedly proclaimed his admiration for Adams. 8 8 8He was brave. He was honest. His devotion to service, to the service of the country, to the public good, is beyond almost any other example, 9 9 McCullough testified. Adams was a 8 8true patriot 9 9 who 8 8was the first American to stand before King George III as our first minister to Great Britain, a farmer 9s son, standing before the monarch of Great Britain, to represent the new independent Nation, surely one of the greatest moments, greatest scenes in American history. 9 9 McCullough called Adams the 8 8voice of independence, 9 9 and incorrectly cited Jefferson saying that Adams was the 8 8colossus of independence. 9 9 9 And he related a favorite story about Adams to prove his point: In our rotunda, sir, hangs the great painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull, seen by thousands of tourists, thousands of visi- tors from all over the world, millions of people, year after year. If you study the painting, at the exact center, the focal point, with all of the devices that an artist uses to train the eye to come to the focal point clearly in evidence, clearly at work, at the exact center is John Adams, because those who were there knew that he was the man who made it happen. 90 T. Parry-Giles McCullough frequently used Trumbull 9s painting to prove his point; it appeared in interviews McCullough gave to both CNN and NPR. Ultimately, McCullough concludes at the subcommittee hearings that 8 8the idea that we have forgotten this man,thathehasstoodintheshadowsalltheseyears,doesnotreflectwellonanyofus. 9 9 McCullough 9s use of Trumbull 9s painting deserves special scrutiny as it so clearly reveals the contemporary tendency to venerate based in emotion and celebrity. We are asked, by McCullough, to commemorate Adams because of a visual represen- tation of him as the prime mover, the very epicenter, of America 9s campaign for inde- pendence from England. As such, McCullough employs what Michael Osborn calls 8 8depictive rhetoric, 9 9 or 8 8strategic pictures, verbal or nonverbal visualizations, that linger in the collective memory of audiences as representative of their subjects 9 9 (79). Such depictions, for Osborn, constitute the 8 8symbolic moorings of human consciousness 9 9 and allow for the critical understanding of rhetorics not rooted in argument and proof, but rather in 8 8those moments in which audiences encounter significant presentations of reality 9 9 that may 8 8enjoy that particular authority we have ascribed to mythos 9 9 (97). McCullough 9s use of the Trumbull painting to advance his position about Adams represents the reaffirmation function of the rhetorical depiction, or what Osborn defines as a rhetoric that 8 8guards the sacred fire around which a nation or a subculture gathers periodically to warm itself in recognition of its being 9 9 (95). The Trumbull painting is familiar and accessible to American audiences, and certainly to the con- gressional representatives at the hearings, working just feet away from the actual paint- ing itself. McCullough 9s depiction is epideictic in its use of Trumbull as it venerates the vision of Adams presented there so as to magnify his heroism. That McCullough repeated this tale so frequently speaks to its resonance, to its capacity to reaffirm and solidify identity and memory. Yet, upon closer examination, there are alternative readings of Trumbull 9s painting that undermine McCullough 9s interpretation. Trumbull 9s The Declaration of Independence is, as his biographer notes, 8 8a docu- ment of the Enlightenment . . . based on the faith that the rule of reason would bring order and justice to human society 9 9 (Jaffe 17). The painting was the result of an extended effort by the artist to accurately depict the gathering in Philadelphia and the men who came together to declare American independence; the aged artist was even present in 1826 (the year of Adams 9s death) with then President John Quincy Adams when the painting was unveiled in the new Rotunda of the US Capitol (Jaffe 19). Trumbull himself recounts meeting Adams in London where he admired the 8 8color and nature curl 9 9 in Adams 9s unpowdered hair and 8 8took the opportunity to paint his portrait in the small Declaration of Independence 9 9 (147). A careful examination of the painting reveals that its focal point is the drafting committee of the Declaration, with Adams, Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin given more prominence over Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston. While Adams is at the center of the painting, it is Jefferson who is the tallest figure in the rendition, por- trayed in a stance 8 8derived from the ad locutio pose which since Augustus Caesar has served as a proper image for statesmen and military heroes. 9 9 Adams stands nearby in an 8 8 almost equally honored 9 9 position that was associated with Van Dyck 9s painting Western Journal of Communication 91 of Charles I, according to Trumbull 9s biographer Irma Jaffe. Franklin is similarly honored with his head 8 8set strongly in relief against the northwest door 9 9 (Jaffe 77 378, emphasis added). 10 At the very least, McCullough 9s translation of The Declaration of Independence to fit his portrayal of Adams is an idiosyncratic reading of the painting, ignorant of important artistic and historical aspects of Trumbull 9s rendition of this pivotal moment in US history. More seriously, perhaps, is that McCullough 9s appropriation of this iconic American image in the service of his hagiography bespeaks the domi- nation of visuality, the power of celebrity, in contemporary political discourse and in the collective memorializing of leaders past. McCullough seeks a monument for Adams not because Adams was actually central to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, but because one artist two centuries ago painted him in a manner that might suggest that centrality. For those attending the hearings, for those voting to erect a monument to John Adams in Washington, DC, the vision offered to them of our second president is decid- edly rooted in celebrity, in the need for greater visibility and in our affective, emotional reaction to his obscurity for so many years. Joseph Ellis, another Adams biographer, testified to the subcommittee that Adams 8 8is probably the most unappreciated great man in American history. 9 9 Adams 9s 8 8one-woman Cabinet 9 9 was Abigail Adams, according to Ellis, and 8 8one of Adams 9s most important legacies is his family, which is arguably the greatest political and intellectual family in American political history. 9 9 In short, for Ellis and McCullough, the John Adams deserving of a monument in the nation 9s capital is a sanitized, celebritized image of this founder. We are invited, by their testimony, to ignore the Alien and Sedition Acts, to dismiss Adams 9s petu- lance and self-pitying, to bypass his overt partisanship and political failures. His fame and distinction come less from his accomplishments and more from our ignorance of them, less from his good will and prudence and more because of his offspring and the 8 8love story 9 9 he shared with Abigail. The impact of McCullough 9s sanitation of Adams is evident in the final Senate report on the Adams Memorial, which stated, 8 8Historian and author David McCullough contends that the force of John Adams 9s argument on the floor of the Second Continental Congress was critical in securing sufficient support for the Declaration of Independence. 9 9 Mentioned also in the report are the Dutch loan, the fact that Adams was the first president to live in the White House, and that Abigail was an 8 8early advocate of women 9s rights, a fierce patriot, and a staunch abolitionist 9 9 (United States 1 32). With the passage of H.R. 1668 in 2001, McCullough 9s quest for a memorial to John Adams and his family was fulfilled. That this passage was motivated, at least in part, by the celebritized construction of Adams 9s legacy is ironic at best, and potentially disturbing at worst for what it reveals about the state of contemporary political culture. A Passion for Distinction: John Adams on Fame and Celebrity In his classic indictment of political life in mid twentieth-century America, Daniel Boorstin concludes that the 8 8root of our problem, the social source of these 92 T. Parry-Giles exaggerated expectations, is in our novel power to make men famous 9 9 (46). Boorstin 9s notion of manufactured fame and the pseudo-fame of celebrity politics may have seemed new in 1961. But his comments were hardly novel. One hundred and seventy-one years before Boorstin lamented the role of fame in creating celebrity, John Adams theorized that 8 8There is none among them [the passions] more essential or remarkable, than the passion for distinction. 9 9 In his Discourses on Davila , a series of newspaper articles published in the Gazette of the United States in 1790, Adams concluded that 8 8a desire to be observed, considered, esteemed, praised, beloved, and admired by his fellows, is one of the earliest, as well as keenest dispositions dis- covered in the heart of man 9 9 (25 326). 11 Adams 9s discovery of this passion for distinc- tion, the quest for fame, represents a shift in his thinking about the source of political motivation 4 as A.D. Morse concluded, the concept of a thirst for distinction replaced the broader principle of 8 8the love of power 9 9 expressed in Adams 9s earlier writings (294). This shift is not incidental, and its articulation makes Adams a prophetic commentator on the nature and substance of early (and contemporary) American political discourse. Adams 9s commentaries, moreover, offer a compelling articulation of the role of fame, power, and celebrity in public life. They, thus, function to interrogate the very rhetorics of memory employed by David McCullough and others in the articulation and enactment of our collective memory of John Adams. Power is manifested in a variety of ways 4 police power, economic power, political power. But distinction and fame are largely symbolic processes, where acclaim results from the rhetorical expression of approbation and respect. For Adams and the foun- ders, then, as Douglass Adair reveals, pursuing fame 8 8was a way of transforming egotism and self-aggrandizing impulses into public service; they had been taught that public service nobly (and selfishly) performed was the surest way to build 8lasting monuments 9 and earn the perpetual remembrance of posterity 9 9 (8). If fame is the main source of political motivation, and if the search for fame and distinction is at the basis of public virtue in a republican community, then that community becomes dependent upon the symbolic resources communicating distinction to the public 4 that community comes to rely, in Adams 9s words, on a 8 8language of signs. 9 9 Adams specifically points to Roman society and its effective use of the 8 8language of signs 9 9 as evidence of a nation 8 8who understood the human heart. 9 9 In his dis- cussion of Roman virtue, he maintains that 8 8reason holds the helm, but passions are the gales: and as the direct road to these is through the senses, the language of signs was employed by Roman wisdom to excite the emulation and active virtue of the citizens. 9 9 He details the specific uses of clothing and jewelry by the Romans to confer distinction and to 8 8attract the attention, to allure the consideration, and excite the congratulations of the people. 9 9 Ultimately, Adams concludes that 8 8it is easy to see how such a scene must operate on the hearts of a nation: how it must affect the passion for distinction: and how it must excite the ardor and virtuous emulation of the citizens 9 9 (40 343). Little more works to explain how individuals are motivated to public service, in Adams 9s vision, than the innate quest by all good people for dis- tinction and reputation. What governments and communities do to confer that fame Western Journal of Communication 93 or, in his words, the language of signs they employ 4 is critical for this most basic of human passions to succeed in promoting the public good. A cornerstone of Adams 9s sense of public fame and reputation is, as James Farrell has convincingly argued, the performance of public oratory. Rooted in his under- standing and appreciation of Cicero, Adams 8 8decided that oratorical distinction was one promising path to glory 9 9 ( 8 8John Adams 9s Autobiography 9 9 508), according to Farrell, and he 8 8never lost his desire to achieve fame as a statesman-orator 9 9 ( 8 8John Adams 9s Autobiography 9 9 510). The oratorical model, and the virtue that he saw in Cicero, also figured Adams 9s sense of presidential leadership, where strong presidents emerge because they manifest 8 8moral conduct, patriotic eloquence, prudent deliber- ation, independent and courageous action, 9 9 as Farrell notes ( 8 8Classical Virtue 9 9 82). Again, Farrell 9s work, and Adams 9s pursuit of oratorical excellence, speak to the sym- bolic nature of this founder 9s political theory, where the rhetorical achieves eminence as a marker of public virtue and personal merit. The manifestations of fame and the means by which citizens learned about the dis- tinction of their leaders were clearly of central concern in Adams 9s political theories. Fame had its roots in a 8 8voice within us, 9 9 according to Adams, 8 8which seems to inti- mate, that real merit should govern the world; and that men ought to be respected only in proportion to their talents, virtues, and services 9 9 (50 351). Beauty, wealth, posses- sions, family lineage 4 such non-merit based sources of fame were illegitimate as mar- kers of virtue for Adams. Instead, 8 8real merit 9 9 is the test, rooted in good works and sound judgment. Indeed, the search for 8 8real merit, 9 9 the attempt to discern such merit, is often detoured by powerful temperamental tendencies in human nature. According toAdams, 8 8Thereislessdispositiontocongratulationwithgenius,talents,orvirtue,than there is with beauty, strength and elegance of person; and less with these than with the gifts of fortune and birth, wealth and fame 9 9 (55). Here we see the differentiations that Adams sees between fame and celebrity 4 between real distinction and simple artifice. John Adams, thus, offers a rather straightforward, arguably elitist, and certainly exclusive vision of fame and distinction that works as the foundation of his under- standing of political psychology and leadership. Because of the importance of fame for his vision of political leadership, he fretted that communicating personal distinc- tion to a large audience would be difficult, if not impossible. 8 8Real merit, 9 9 wrote Adams, 8 8is so remote from the knowledge of whole nations, that were magistrates to be chosen by that criterion alone, and by an universal suffrage, dissentions and venality would be endless. 9 9 Such merit is rare, in Adams 9s sense of leadership, eclipsed most often by the 8 8artifice, dissimulation, hypocrisy, flattery, imposture, empiricism, quackery, and bribery 9 9 of those lacking in merit but seeking honor and fame (51). It is precisely at this juncture in Adams 9s theory of fame that we glimpse his visionary sense of contemporary preoccupations with celebrity. Adams and the Perils of Celebrity Culture There is perhaps no greater commentary on the tension between actual merit- based fame and the dangers of celebrity than in Adams 9s discussions, particularly 94 T. Parry-Giles in letters to his long-time correspondent Benjamin Rush, of the public image of George Washington. This subject was a persistent theme in a series of letters span- ning several years and Adams 9s insights indict the very tools and techniques of celebrity culture at work in McCullough 9s rendition of Adams 9s biography and in the historian 9s articulation of the need for an Adams memorial. As Philip Abbott maintains in his study of presidential belatedness, Adams lived completely in the shadow of George Washington for much of his public career and, obviously, as president. During his presidency, Adams 8 8suffered many humilia- tions, not the least was his party 9s attempt to bring back Washington once again as military commander. 9 9 To this slight, Abbott notes, 8 8Adams in retirement responded with justifiable monumental resentment 9 9 (224). Though reluctant to discuss the veneration of Washington publicly, Adams frequently expressed in his private letters 8 8his unease with the emerging mythology about cherry trees and god-like wisdom 9 9 (Ellis 67). A keen satirist and observer of the public life of his time, Adams astutely expressed, in a letter to Rush dated November 11, 1807, his vision of the constructed celebrity of George Washington when he delineated the ten talents he believed Washington possessed: 1. An handsome face. That this is a talent, I can prove by the authority of a thou- sand instances in all ages . . . . 2. A tall stature . . . . 3. An elegant form. 4. Graceful attitudes and movements. 5. A large, imposing fortune consisting of a great landed estate left him by his father and brother, besides a large jointure with his lady . . . . 6. Washington was a Virginian. This is equivalent to five talents. Virginian geese are all swans . . . . 7. Washington was preceded by favorable anecdotes . . . . They [the British] had exaggerated and misrepresented his defeat and capitulation, which interested the pride as well as compassion of Americans in his favor . . . . 8. He possessed the gift of silence. This I esteem as one of his most precious talents. 9. He had great self-command . . . . 10. Whenever he lost his temper as he did some- times, either love or fear in those about him induced them to conceal his weakness from the world. Here you see I have made out ten talents without saying a word about reading, thinking, or writing, upon all which subjects you have said all that need be said. (Schutz and Adair 97 398) Each of these talents, as Adams self-reflexively notes, is derived not from merit or accomplishment, but from personality, visage, or happenstance. They come from Washington 9s possession of wealth, his appearance, or his luck of circumstance 4 in short, the factors that made Washington his era 9s biggest celebrity. In this way, Adams 9s observations speak powerfully to the early nineteenth-century sense of political celebrity and the tensions that existed between such celebrity and the demar- cation of public virtue and distinction. Of course, similar standards of reputation and renown are present in David McCullough 9s recollections of John Adams. McCullough makes much of Adams 9s status as a New Englander, with all of the attendant character traits that suggests. McCullough is the master of 8 8favorable anecdotes 9 9 in his rendition of Adams 9s biography. Just as Adams notes Washington 9s successful 8 8jointure with his lady, 9 9 so McCullough makes much of Adams 9s marriage to Abigail. And even if Adams Western Journal of Communication 95 did not possess Washington 9s handsomeness or compelling visage, McCullough still highlights the visual and the physical in his invocation of the Trumbull painting as important to our memory of Adams. That Adams resented Washington 9s celebrity is clear 4 he saw such adoration as designed to 8 8cast disgrace upon Washington 9s two successors, Adams and Jefferson. 9 9 He was particularly appalled by the Fourth of July celebrations at Boston 9s Faneuil Hall, where 8 8Washington 9s picture is placed behind the table of the principal magis- trates, Hamilton 9s opposite to him in the most conspicuous spot in the whole hall, while the pictures of Samuel Adams and John Hancock are crowded away in two obscure corners. 9 9 One wonders where Adams 9s own picture figured in this scene at Boston 9s famous hall. In the same 1808 letter to Rush, Adams remarked, 8 8At the time of Hamilton 9s death, the Federal papers avowed that Hamilton was the soul and Washington the body, or in other words that Washington was the painted wooden head of the ship and Hamilton the pilot and steersman. Thus the world goes, has ever gone, and ever will go. And so let it go 9 9 (Schutz and Adair 103 305). A year later, reflecting on the celebrations of Washington 9s birthday in Boston, Adams wrote to Rush that 8 8I allow Washington, Hamilton, and Ames all their real merit, but many others much more important and deserving than either of them, instead of being honored, are studiously and systematically driven into oblivion 9 9 (Schutz and Adair 135). Still preoccupied with the same question in 1812, Adams remarked in another letter to Rush that 8 8Washington and Franklin 4 I will go no further at present 4 killed all scandal by puffers. You and I have never employed them, and therefore scandal has prevailed against us 9 9 (Schutz and Adair 216 317). Puffing, what today we might call public relations or publicity, was the means to avoid scandal while it also, in Adams 9s vision, created a false sense of fame, a delusional reputation as a means of avoiding disrepute. John Adams knew that his fame, his distinction, would go largely unrecognized. There is, indeed, no better demonstration of Adams 9s sharp understanding of political philosophy and the power of celebrity than his own self-reflection of his personal renown or lack thereof. Comparing himself to Cicero, Adams wrote to Rush, 8 8Mausoleums, statues, monuments will never be erected to me. I wish them not. Panegyrical romances will never be written, nor flattering orations spoken, to transmit me to posterity in brilliant colors 9 9 (Schutz and Adair 139). In Adams 9s esti- mation, the 8 8history of our revolution will be one continued lie from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin 9s electrical rod smote the earth andoutsprangGeneralWashington 9 9(qtd.inHaraszti3).AsAdairconcludes,Adams 9s later years were preoccupied by 8 8his lust for fame [that] soured into anguish and envy since he fear[ed] that his great contemporaries, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton have unfairly robbed him of the honor that [was] rightfully his 9 9 (20 321). Another view recognizes that Adams appreciated the power of celebrity in his own time, and while his lamentations about Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and others may seem a bit self-pitying, they still reveal much about the power of a nation, a com- munity, to employ a 8 8language of signs 9 9 in the construction of distinction. Adams 9s observations reveal the relevance of celebrity for his political theory. As C. Bradley 96 T. Parry-Giles Thompson notes, for Adams 8 8the entire art of political architecture ought to be grounded on devising institutional arrangements for the purpose of regulating and channeling its [the passion for distinction 9s] dangerous and beneficial tendencies 9 9 (156). Adams sees danger when leaders are renowned for characteristics and attributes that have nothing to do with merit, prudence or conduct. But communities and polities have much to gain in Adams 9s theory when this passion brings good people to government, offering the most virtuous leaders to the community and its citizens. Conclusion In his considered assessment of the ideological meanings of the commitment 8 8not men, but measures, 9 9 the late Michael Calvin McGee reminded us that 8 8human beings make up a government, not 8measures 9 or 8issues 9. The quality of a government is thus a function of the quality of Leadership, not of the policies advocated by [a] government 9 9 (153). McGee was correct in calling attention to the preoccupation in US politics to the stale, detached engagement with policy and his belief that character and leadership are central to democratic governance seems more and more relevant in the contemporary political environment. McGee 9s conclusion about the nature of US political discourse echoes the historical insights offered in Adair 9s discussion of fame and the Founders. As Adair notes, the United States was founded by 8 8passionately selfish and self-interested 9 9 individuals who were giants because they had been led 8 8to redefine their notions of interest. 9 9 8 8Through the concept of fame, 9 9 Adair continues, the Founders developed 8 8a personal stake in creating a national system dedicated to liberty, to justice, and to the general welfare 9 9 (24). But relying on character, fame, renown, leadership as the focal points of political life and activity is complicated. It is much more secure to base a community 9s identity and its politics on policies, laws, or even abstract principles. There are con- sequences to a character-driven political culture, consequences recognized by Adams over 200 years ago, and that persist and continue to shape his historical legacy today. The uncertainty, the tenuousness, of rooting politics in personality and character are profound. After all, 8 8the vulnerability and fluidity of human character are not comfortable foundations for a community 9s identity 9 9 (Parry-Giles 377). Indeed, examining the construction of John Adams in the efforts by those seeking his memorialization reveals this very discomfort, and how through celebritization the culture confronts that unease. That David McCullough accessed and exploited the grammars of celebrity speaks to both the power of celebrity rhetoric in contemporary US political culture and to the cultural myopia in fully appreciating Adams 9s legacy. For McCullough, Adams deserved recognition primarily because he was forgotten. His collective memory, according to McCullough 9s telling, is rooted in our Founders nostalgia, in our collec- tive guilt for forgetting him, and in emotional-laden dimensions of his personal narrative. There is also a visual dimension to McCullough 9s construction of Adams 9s celebrity, where the historian accesses the iconic painting by Trumbull to elevate his subject, to expand his reach and his emotional resonance for the community. Western Journal of Communication 97 In his articulation of the rationale for an Adams memorial and in his rendition of Adams 9s story, McCullough operates at direct odds with Adams 9s own political philo- sophy. Adams saw the dangers of rhetorics aimed at promoting celebrity and he lamented the artificiality of the celebrities in his own time. And in his concern about his own legacy and the nature of his memory in the collective imaginary, Adams recognized how celebrity operates and the dangers of this cultural grammar for the articulation of history and biography. Adams speaks specifically to his own legacy, his own place within the collective memory, and his fervent hope that that legacy is based not on what he disdained so much 4 the features of a celebrity 4 but on an honest, clear appraisal of his accomplishments. As he considered his own legacy, and discussed fame, celebrity, and political psychology, John Adams offered a normative vision of the 8 8language of signs 9 9 that characterizes political discourse about character. In so doing, Adams also prescribed a vision for the rhetorical articulation of collective memory, a discursive means of assessing public virtue in the determination of historical legacy. Unfortunately, in his exuberance to resurrect Adams 9s legacy, David McCullough ignored the lessons of his subject and fell prey to the same vapid rhetorics of celebrity that so tragically dominate so much contemporary discourse. In so doing, McCullough revealed much about the mechanisms of collective memory in contemporary America while simul- taneously betraying the very legacy of the man he sought to elevate. John Adams was a remarkable figure. His leadership in securing the Dutch loan, in arguing for independence, in acting to prevent war with France, and in so many other aspects of pre-Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary life should be praised and honored. But to cleanse Adams and his legacy of all blemishes, to pretend that he was something he was not, is to do him a disservice. As Bruce Miroff argues, 8 8The ideas and the career of John Adams provide rich material for reflection on the character of political leadership in America 9 9 (81). John Adams, it seems, would want his fame to reflect the entirety of his record, and while it may be true that he is ignored or forgotten, it is also the case that in aspects of his public life, he made judg- ments and enacted policies that deserve scorn. 8 8Adams was also prescient, 9 9 notes Miroff, 8 8in diagnosing the ways in which political appearances could be falsified and political virtue corrupted in the American republic 9 9 (81). If we operate as does David McCullough, where we historically ignore or downplay the errors in judgment, the flaws in character, of Adams or any historical celebrity that is venerated in America 9s rendition of its past, we give way to the dangers of celebrity culture where all that mat- ters is the puffery, the good, and the visible. John Adams and his historical legacy deserve better. Notes [1] A considered discussion of the constructedness of Washington 9s persona and character is offered by Longmore. [2] My sense of 8 8rhetorical grammars 9 9 borrows from Sanford Schram 9s understanding of 8 8grammars 9 9 as a dominant discourse derived from a series of discursive practices and norms. See Schram 215, note 1. 98 T. Parry-Giles [3] For additional commentary on Adams as a political theorist, see Appleby 578-95 and Kurtz 605-13. [4] Collective memory and its political and historical consequences are also discussed in Browne, 8 8Remembering 9 9 169 387 and Cox 1 313. [5] For the etymological and historical roots of celebrity, see Braudy 17 and Gamson 17 319. [6] A different perspective on the history of celebrity culture argues that it is a twentieth- century phenomenon, inextricably linked to the mass communication forms of film and television. See Schickel; Gabler. For a discussion of the role of fame in the political life of colonial and revolutionary America, see Adair. [7] See Edelman for the foundational discussion of the symbolic construction of public leaders. [8] All citations are from McCullough 9s remarks to the subcommittee on June 12, 2001. See U.S. House 41 343. [9] Historian Richard N. Rosenfeld revealed after McCullough 9s book was published that Jefferson did not actually say that Adams was a 8 8colossus of independence. 9 9 See Kirkpatrick 10. [10] It is worth noting that Jefferson was critical to the commissioning of Trumbull to produce the paintings for the Capitol Rotunda. Jefferson 9s recommendation, according to Garry Wills, 8 8helped Trumbull, in his beleaguered old age, win congressional approval for the scheme to decorate the Rotunda of the Capitol with scenes of civic and military heroism 9 9 (111). [11] Adams 9s writings in the Discourses are heavily dependent upon the theories of Adam Smith and his Theory of Moral Sentiment . For a detailed discussion of the connections between Adams 9s work and Smith 9s, see Haraszti 165 3179. Miroff rehabilitates Adams discussion of fame as a political motivation somewhat, noting that Adams 8 8developed the political implications of 8the passion for distinction 9 in a manner that went well beyond anything in Smith 9s text 9 9 (369, note 10). Works Cited Abbott, Philip. Strong Presidents: A Theory of Leadership . Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1996. Adair, Douglass. 8 8Fame and the Founding Fathers. 9 9 Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair . Ed. Trevor Colbourn. New York: W.W. Norton, 1974. 3 324. Adams Family Memorial. Pub. L. 107 362. 5 Nov 2001. Stat. 115.411. Adams, John. Discourses on Davila: A Series of Papers on Political History . 1790. New York: Da Capo Press, 1973. Appleby, Joyce. 8 8The New Republican Synthesis and the Changing Political Ideas of John Adams. 9 9 American Quarterly 25 (1973): 578 395. Baker, Thomas N. Sentiment & Celebrity: Nathaniel Parker Willis and the Trials of Literary Fame . New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Blair, Carole. 8 8Communication as Collective Memory. 9 9 Communication as . . . Perspectives on Theory . Eds. Gregory J. Shepherd, Jeffrey St. John, and Ted Striphas. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2006. 51 359. Boorstin, Daniel J. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America . 1961. New York: Vintage, 1992. Braudy, Leo. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame & Its History . New York: Oxford UP, 1986. Brown, Ralph Adams. The Presidency of John Adams . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1975. Browne, Stephen H. 8 8Reading Public Memory in Daniel Webster 9s Plymouth Rock Orations . 9 9 Western Journal of Communication 57 (1993): 464 377. 4 . 8 8Remembering Crispus Attucks: Race, Rhetoric, and the Politics of Commemoration. 9 9 Quarterly Journal of Speech 85 (1999): 169 387. Western Journal of Communication 99 Cox, J. Robert. 8 8Memory, Critical Theory, and the Argument from History. 9 9 Argumentation & Advocacy 27 (1990): 1 313. Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle . New York: Zone Books, 1994. Dixon, Wheeler Winston. Disaster and Memory: Celebrity Culture and the Crisis of Hollywood Cinema . New York: Columbia UP, 1999. Diggins, John Patrick. John Adams . New York: Times Books, 2003. Dorfman, Joseph. 8 8The Regal Republic of John Adams. 9 9 Political Science Quarterly 59 (1944): 227 347. Edelman, Murray. Constructing the Political Spectacle . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Ellis, Joseph J. Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams . New York: W.W. Norton, 1993. Farrell, James M. 8 8Classical Virtue and Presidential Fame: John Adams, Leadership, and the Franco-American Crisis. 9 9 The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership . Ed. Leroy G. Dorsey. College Station: Texas A&M UP, 2002. 73 394. 4 . 8 8John Adams 9s Autobiography : The Ciceronian Paradigm and the Quest for Fame. 9 9 New England Quarterly 62: 505 328. Fowles, Jib. Starstruck: Celebrity Performers and the American Public . Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992. Gabler, Neal. Winchell: Gossip, Power, and the Culture of Celebrity . New York: Knopf, 1994. Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Haraszti, Zolt aan. John Adams & the Prophets of Progress . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1952. Hutson, James H. 8 8John Adams 9 Title Campaign. 9 9 New England Quarterly 41 (1968): 30 339. Jaffe, Irma B. Trumbull: The Declaration of Independence . New York: Viking, 1976. Kirkpatrick, David D. 8 8Mediatalk: Error in Quote Stirs Arguments Over Adams Legacy. 9 9 New York Times 23 July 2001: C10 þ . Kurtz, Stephen G. 8 8The Political Science of John Adams: A Guide to His Statecraft. 9 9 The William and Mary Quarterly 25 (1968): 605 313. Longmore, Paul K. The Invention of George Washington . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Lusted, David. 8 8The Glut of Personality. 9 9 Stardom: Industry of Desire . Ed. Christine Gledhill. London: Routledge, 1990. 251 358. Marshall, P. David. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. McCullough, David. John Adams . New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. McDonald, Forrest. The American Presidency: An Intellectual History . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994. McGee, Michael Calvin. 8 8 8Not Men, But Measures 9: The Origins and Import of an Ideological Principle. 9 9 Quarterly Journal of Speech 64 (1978): 141 355. Miroff, Bruce. Icons of Democracy: American Leaders as Heroes, Aristocrats, Dissenters, and Democrats . New York: Basic Books, 1993. Morse, Anson D. 8 8The Politics of John Adams. 9 9 The American Historical Review 4 (1899): 292 3312. Osborn, Michael. 8 8Rhetorical Depiction. 9 9 Form, Genre, and the Study of Political Discourse . Eds. Herbert W. Simons and Aram A. Aghazian. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986. 79 3107. Parry-Giles, Shawn J. and Trevor Parry-Giles. 8 8Collective Memory, Political Nostalgia, and the Rhetorical Presidency: Bill Clinton 9s Commemoration of the March on Washington, August 28, 1998. 9 9 Quarterly Journal of Speech 86 (2000): 417 337. Parry-Giles, Trevor. 8 8Character, the Constitution, and the Ideological Embodiment of 8Civil Rights 9 in the 1967 Nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. 9 9 Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 364 382. Rojek, Chris. Celebrity . London: Reaktion Books, 2001. 100 T. Parry-Giles Schickel, Richard. Intimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity . Garden City: Doubleday, 1986. Schram, Sanford F. 8 8The Post-Modern Presidency and the Grammar of Electronic Electioneering. 9 9 Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8 (1991): 210 316. Schutz, John A. and Douglass Adair. The Spur of Fame: Dialogues of John Adams and Benjamin Rush, 1805 31813 . San Marino: The Huntington Library, 1966. Siegworth, Greg. 8 8The Distance Between Me & You: Madonna & Celestial Navigation (or You Can Be My Lucky Star). 9 9 The Madonna Connection: Representational Politics, Subcultural Identities, and Cultural Theory . Ed. Cathy Schwichtenberg. Boulder: Westview, 1993. 291 3318. Thompson, C. Bradley. John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998. Trumbull, John. The Autobiography of Colonel John Trumbull, Patriot-Artist, 1756 31843 . Ed. Theodore Sizer. 1953. New York: Da Capo Press, 1970. United States. Cong. Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. Legislative Hearing, H.R. 271, H.R. 980, and H.R. 1668 . 107th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: GPO, 12 June 2001: 41 343. United States. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Adams Memorial . 107th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: GPO, 1 Oct. 2001:

less