Political Argumentation In The United States: Historical And Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky

9789027211248-261x361.jpg Author David Zarefsky
Isbn 978-9027211248
File size 1.8 MB
Year 2014
Pages 396
Language English
File format PDF
Category politics and sociology


Political Argumentation in the United States Argumentation in Context (AIC) This new book series highlights the variety of argumentative practices that have become established in modern society by focusing on the study of context-dependent characteristics of argumentative discourse that vary according to the demands of the more or less institutionalized communicative activity type in which the discourse takes place. Examples of such activity types are parliamentary debates and political interviews, medical consultations and health brochures, legal annotations and judicial sentences, editorials and advertorials in newspapers, and scholarly reviews and essays. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/aic Editors Frans van Eemeren University of Amsterdam Bart Garssen University of Amsterdam Editorial Board Mark Aakhus Eddo Rigotti Marianne Doury Sara Rubinelli University of Lugano Rutgers University ILIAS, Swiss Paraplegic Research & University of Lucerne CNRS Paris Eveline Feteris University of Amsterdam Takeshi Suzuki G. Thomas Goodnight Meiji University Cornelia Ilie Bocconi University Sally Jackson Northwestern University Manfred Kienpointner Budapest University of Technology and Economic University of Southern California Zayed University, Abu Dhabi University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Innsbrueck Giovanni Tuzet David Zarefsky Gábor Zemplén Volume 7 Political Argumentation in the United States Historical and contemporary studies Selected essays by David Zarefsky Political Argumentation in the United States Historical and contemporary studies Selected essays by David Zarefsky Northwestern University John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia 8 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Zarefsky, David. Political Argumentation in the United States : Historical and contemporary studies / Selected essays by David Zarefsky / David Zarefsky. p. cm. (Argumentation in Context, issn 1877-6884 ; v. 7) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Persuasion (Rhetoric)--Political aspects--United States. 2. Communication-Political aspects--United States. 3. Rhetoric--Political aspects--United States. 4. Interviewing--United States. 5. Conversation analysis--United States. 6.  Reasoning--United States. I. Title. P301.5.P47Z37 2014 320.97301’4--dc23 2014012491 isbn 978 90 272 1124 8 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 6990 4 (Eb) © 2014 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa  For Beth and Danny, Marc and Emily  the promise of the next generation Table of contents introduction The field of political argumentation1 Part I.  Early American political argumentation chapter 1 From “conflict” to “Constitutional question”: Transformations in early American public discourse11 (with Victoria J. Gallagher) chapter 2 John Tyler and the rhetoric of the accidental presidency 31 chapter 3 Debating slavery by proxy: The Texas annexation controversy51 chapter 4 Henry Clay and the election of 1844: The limits of a rhetoric of compromise  63 Part II.  Abraham Lincoln’s political argumentation chapter 5 Consistency and change in Lincoln’s rhetoric about equality85 chapter 6 “Public sentiment is everything”: Lincoln’s view of political persuasion109 chapter 7 Lincoln and the House Divided: Launching a national political career125 chapter 8 The Lincoln-Douglas debates revisited: The evolution of public argument155 chapter 9 Philosophy and rhetoric in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address 185 viii Political Argumentation in the United States Part III.  Argumentation and American foreign policy chapter 10 The self-sealing rhetoric of John Foster Dulles 209 (with Frank E. Tutzauer and Carol Miller-Tutzauer) chapter 11 Foreign policy as persuasion: Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam221 chapter 12 George W. Bush discovers rhetoric: September 20, 2001 and the U.S. response to terrorism233 chapter 13 Making the case for war: Colin Powell at the United Nations255 chapter 14 The U.S. and the world: The rhetorical dimensions of Obama’s foreign policy  281 Part IV.  American political argumentation since the 1960s chapter 15 The Great Society as a rhetorical proposition 303 chapter 16 Lyndon Johnson redefines “equal opportunity”: The beginnings of affirmative action  323 chapter 17 Civil rights and civil conflict: Presidential communication in crisis 337 chapter 18 Martin Luther King, the American Dream, and Vietnam: A collision of rhetorical trajectories347 (with George N. Dionisopoulos, Victoria J. Gallagher, and Steven R. Goldzwig) chapter 19 Reagan’s safety net for the truly needy: The rhetorical uses of definition 365 (with Carol Miller-Tutzauer and Frank E. Tutzauer) chapter 20 Obama’s Lincoln: Uses of the argument from historical analogy375 Index383 Permissions Chapter 1 originally appeared as an article in Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76: 247–261 (August, 1990). Reprinted with permission of Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, www.tandfonline.com, and with the approval of Victoria J. Gallagher, coauthor. Chapter 2 originally appeared as a chapter in Before the Rhetorical Presidency (Martin J. Medhurst, Ed.), pp. 63–82 (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2008). Reprinted with permission of Texas A&M University Press. Chapter 3 originally appeared as a chapter in In the Shadow of Freedom (Paul Finkelman and Donald R. Kennon, Ed.), pp. 125–137 (Athens, Ohio: Ohio Uni­versity Press, 2011), © Ohio University Press. Reprinted with permission of Ohio University Press, www. ohioswallow.com. Chapter 4 originally appeared as an article in Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 6: 79–96 (Spring 2003). Reprinted with permission of Michigan State University Press. Chapter 5 originally appeared as an article in Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 1: 21–44 (Spring 1998). Reprinted with permission of Michigan State University Press. Chapter 6 originally appeared as an article in Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, 15: 23–40 (Summer 1994). © 1994 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Reprinted with permission of University of Illinois Press. Chapter 7 originally appeared as an article in Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 13: 421–453 (Fall 2010). Reprinted with permission of Michigan State University Press. Chapter 8 originally appeared as an article in Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72: 162–184 (May 1986). Reprinted with permission of Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, www. tandfonline.com. Chapter 9 originally appeared as an article in Philosophy & Rhetoric, 45: 165–188 (2012). Reprinted with permission of Penn State University Press. Chapters 10 and 11 have not been previously published. Chapter 10 appears here with the approval of Frank E. Tutzauer and Carol Miller-Tutzauer, coauthors. Chapter 12 originally appeared as a chapter in The Ethos of Rhetoric (Michael J. Hyde, Ed.), pp. 136–155 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004). Reprinted with permission of the University of South Carolina Press. x Political Argumentation in the United States Chapter 13 originally appeared as an article in Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 10: 275–302 (Summer 2007). Reprinted with permission of Michigan State University Press. Figure 13.1 within this chapter © 2014 by The Teaching Company and reprinted with permission from The Teaching Company. Chapter 14 originally appeared as a chapter in The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations: Establishing the Obama Presidency (Justin S. Vaughn and Jennifer R. Mercieca, Ed.), pp. 109–129 (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press.) Reprinted with permission from Texas A&M University Press. Chapter 15 originally appeared as an article in Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65: 364–378 (December, 1979). Reprinted with permission of Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, www.tandfonline.com. Chapter 16 originally appeared as an article in Central States Speech Journal, 31: 85–94 (Summer 1980). Reprinted with permission of Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, www.tandfonline.com. The journal is now known as Communication Studies. Chapter 17 originally appeared as an article in Central States Speech Journal, 34: 59–66 (Spring 1983). Reprinted with permission of Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, www.tandfonline.com. The journal is now known as Communication Studies. Chapter 18 originally appeared as an article in Western Journal of Communication, 56: 91–107 (Spring 1992). Reprinted with permission of Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, www.tandfonline.com, and with the approval of coauthors George Dionisopoulos, Victoria J. Gallagher, and Steven Goldzwig. Chapter 19 originally appeared as an article in Central States Speech Journal, 35: 113– 119 (Summer 1984). Reprinted with permission of Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, www.tandfonline.com, and with the approval of coauthors Frank E. Tutzauer and Carol Miller-Tutzauer. The journal is now known as Communication Studies. Chapter 20 originally appeared as an essay in The Functions of Argument and Social Context (Dennis Gouran, Ed.), pp. 572–578 (Washington: National Communication Association, 2010). Reprinted with permission of the National Communication Association; all rights reserved. introduction The field of political argumentation Politics is widely understood to be a specific context in which argumentation occurs, as are – for example – science, law, religion, and academe. Each specific context is governed by norms and conventions that may be almost intuitive to arguers within that context, as a result of their training and experience, and yet may be unknown or even inaccessible to outsiders. General theories of argumentation are modified or limited by the realities of the particular context. So, for instance, the pragma-dialectical theory recognizes that forms of strategic maneuvering play a prominent role in political argumentation, because the context is typically competitive and adversarial. Striving for power or resources may limit an arguer’s readiness to be completely candid about his or her dialectical obligations. Those obligations do not disappear, of course, but what counts as meeting them is influenced by a realistic understanding of the nature of politics. Similarly, different contexts will favor different argument schemes – analogies and precedents in legal argumentation, causal and correlational arguments in scientific argumentation, and inferences from proof-texts in religious argumentation. Any attempt to ground argumentation theory in actual practice therefore will be sensitive to the contexts of practice. Many studies of political argumentation have equated politics with institutionalized structures of governance. There have been studies of parliamentary or legislative debate, Question Time in the British parliament, judicial decisions, political interviews, campaign debates, diplomatic exchanges, ceremonial political speeches, public letters, white papers, and official investigations, for example. As a rule, the goal of such studies is to produce or test a generic understanding of the particular form or activity type. The specific cases that are investigated typically are means toward that goal rather than ends in themselves. One would be more likely, say, to study the parliamentary questioning of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the “Downing Street memo” regarding the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq war in order to see what it reveals about the nature of Question Time generally than for its specific contribution to that historical moment. Likewise, one would be more inclined to examine the 2004 U.S. presidential debates between George W. Bush and John Kerry to understand the phenomenon of campaign debates and their influence on election results than to reconstruct the 2004 campaign in particular. In both these examples, of course, both purposes are perfectly legitimate, 2 Political Argumentation in the United States but scholars of argumentation generally will prefer the approach that offers the prospect of theorizing about argumentation in general. This approach to studying political argumentation overlaps with, but is not identical to, a long-standing tradition in rhetorical studies in the United States. A subfield has developed, usually identified as “public address” or “public discourse,” that is devoted to the historical-critical study of specific texts or moments of rhetorical significance. Most, though not all, of these studies are devoted to politics since that is a principal topic of discourse in the public sphere. Although there are exceptions, the goal of these studies is less to advance theoretical generalizations than to illumine significant texts or moments in their own right. Sometimes the goal is artistic: to explicate the underlying dynamics of a text or event in order to identify what made it strong or weak, successful or unsuccessful. Sometimes the goal is historical: to explain the role that the text or event played in the flow of history, to identify consequences that arguably flowed from it, or to reveal choices not made or roads not taken, in order to identify how things might have been different if different appeals had carried the day. (The term “rhetorical history” is sometimes used, rather than “public address,” to designate studies that do not center on a particular text or moment but that interpret historical trends as patterns in public persuasion.) The underlying assumptions of such studies are that individual cases matter in themselves, that rhetoric is an art rather than a science and is more creative than systematic, and that the value of models is to suggest possibilities for emulation or adaptation, not primarily to serve as data for theoretical generalizations. Most likely, I have overstated these contrasts in the hope of clarity; in actual practice the differences may be ones of degree rather than kind. Rhetoric and argumentation are overlapping but not identical categories. Studies of public address are not inherently or necessarily concerned with argumentation. But many are. Within rhetoric, argumentation is concerned with the claims advanced in an attempt to influence others, with the reasons offered in support of the claims, and with the relationship between claims and reasons. Like other approaches to argumentation, it has both a descriptive component (what were the claims advanced and what in fact did people take to be reasons for them?) and a normative component (what claims should have been advanced and what should have counted as reasons for them?). Normative standards are derived from general theories of argumentation, modified as necessary for the specific context of politics. I regard my scholarship as fitting squarely within this “public address” or “rhetorical history” tradition. Yet I also regard it as fitting squarely within argumentation studies. Indeed, I have sometimes characterized my work as lying at the intersection of these two approaches. Like public address scholars, I am concerned with the situated character of discourse, so I make extensive efforts to place texts and moments in their historical context and to emphasize how they contribute to Introduction 3 the evolving flow of history. The result is that some of my work is highly detailed in the treatment of specific cases and thinner in the development of theoretical generalizations (although these are often present at least in embryonic form). At the same time, like argumentation scholars, I focus on claims that are advanced – sometimes making explicit claims that are left implicit or unspoken in a text – and how they are advanced in an attempt to be persuasive. I have focused especially on the argumentative use of definition, on framing and frame-shifting, on argument schemes, and on the argumentative significance of organizational and stylistic choices. Readers of these essays will approach them with different understandings of what political argumentation is. Some of the essays fit well with an institutional conception of political argumentation; others depend on a broader understanding of political argumentation as public address or rhetorical history. I hope, however, that few readers will find the approach of any of these essays utterly incompatible with their own. U.S. scholars of public address tend usually to take their objects of study from U.S. public discourse. Several reasons help to explain what at first might seem like insularity or even ethnocentrism. One is simply the tendency of scholars to study the rhetorical culture they know best. Another is the peculiarity of the origin story of the United States, created not out of ethnic identity or tradition but through a culture of argument that interpreted economic pressures as threats to liberty and natural rights and that invented arguments as was required by changing circumstances and constraints. A third reason is the essentially contested nature of much of U.S. political discourse. The disputes about federalism, about the tradeoffs between liberty and equality, about the involvement of the state in the economy, about the responsibilities of the individual to the commons and of the commons to the individual, and about the place of the U.S. in the world that were dominant at the nation’s founding are with us still. They are unlikely ever to be settled, and they present themselves in different guises and sometimes with different central themes. Scholars who examine U.S. public discourse, then, are examining what I have called the transcript of a continuing conversation. The emphasis on political argumentation in the United States, however, is not meant to denigrate any other rhetorical tradition, or to imply that essays like those in this book are not accessible unless the reader is thoroughly versed in U.S. history and politics. Plan of the book This book contains 20 essays on political argumentation in the United States. They appeared over a 35-year period, from 1979 through 2014, in a variety of journals and books. (Two of the essays, written during the early 1980s, were presented at 4 Political Argumentation in the United States conferences but are being published here for the first time.) I have tried to select works that are representative of the topics and approaches that characterize my work and to give preference to essays that may be harder to find, especially for scholars outside the United States. The articles are arranged not chronologically but thematically, and are grouped into four major sections. The first is called “Early American Political Argumentation.” I am concerned with the emergence of political conflict in a way that was actively discouraged by the founders. The first essay considers how the U.S. Constitution, hotly contested during the ratification process, quickly became a commonly revered symbol and hence something not to be fought over but to be fought for. The consequence was to transform economic and political conflicts into Constitutional questions, which both raised the stakes of the arguments and made the conflicts less tractable. Another transformative moment came during the 1840s, when arguments about slavery were commingled with arguments about territorial expansion in what turned out to be a fatal mix. The second essay looks at these events through the prism of the presidential discourse of John Tyler; the third essay examines the Congressional debates over the admission of Texas to the Union; and the fourth essay focuses on the presidential campaign of 1844 and specifically on the campaign discourse of Henry Clay. The second major section of the book is devoted to the political argumentation of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s rhetoric has been a principal focus of my research since the early 1980s. It was difficult to limit this section to only five essays, but I did not want to overwhelm the rest of the book. These essays illustrate the types of work I have done on Lincoln. Chapter 5 explores a particular topic – Lincoln’s statements about racial equality – and investigates the charge that he was inconsistent in his argumentation, pandering to whatever his immediate audience wished to hear. Chapter 6 draws from Lincoln’s own words, especially during the first of his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, to lay out Lincoln’s implicit theory of political argument and persuasion, grounded in his understanding of “public sentiment.” Chapter 7 is a detailed textual study of Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech, in which I investigate how Lincoln attempted to make credible the argument that Douglas was part of a plot to spread slavery across the United States, and I try to explain why this argument was so important to Lincoln’s political future. In Chapter 8 I map the major patterns of argumentation in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, conducted when both men were candidates for a U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. I identify four major patterns – conspiracy arguments, legal arguments, historical arguments, and moral arguments – and speculate about why so much of the time was focused on matters seemingly tangential to the question of whether slavery should be permitted to spread into new territories. This essay is a preview of the book I subsequently wrote analyzing the debates in more detail (Zarefsky 1990). Finally, Chapter 9 also Introduction 5 examines a specific text, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address of 1861, in an attempt to discover how Lincoln develops a principled argument against secession as a matter of political theory and also adapts his argument to the reality that seven states already have passed ordinances of secession. The argumentative choices Lincoln made in composing the speech would influence both his conduct of the war and his approach to reconstruction. “Argumentation and American Foreign Policy” is the third major section of the book. This has been a persistent interest of mine but a relatively minor strain in my published scholarship. My early interest in the Cold War, reflected in my master’s thesis on John Foster Dulles, was augmented by an interest in the rhetorical problems posed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath. The first two essays in this section have not been published previously; both were presented at the National Communication Association convention in 1983. Chapter 10 concerns the use by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles of “selfsealing” arguments during the 1950s. “Self-sealing” arguments are those which cannot be contested or evaluated because the original argument envelops the challenge and reinterprets it as support. Arguments of this kind prevented careful evaluation of the premises underlying the Cold War. In Chapter 11 I examine the notion that the Vietnam war was conducted not for any traditional military result but in order to prove the claim that wars of liberation fail. This means that such military matters as troop levels and bombing schedules were intended as symbolic arguments and were important for the message they would convey. The remaining essays in this section concern more contemporary issues. Chapters 12 and 13 examine the argumentation in two specific texts: President George W. Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 address to the United Nations Security Council seeking to justify military action against Iraq. Finally, Chapter 14 is the most recent of the essays in this volume. It investigates several of President Barack Obama’s speeches from his first year as president, considering them in a context in which claims to American exceptionalism continued to resonate with domestic audiences but were of reduced utility abroad. The fourth major section of the book is “American Political Argumentation Since the 1960s.” Much of my earliest scholarship in political argumentation, growing out of my doctoral dissertation on the War on Poverty, was devoted to U.S. domestic policy during the 1960s, especially the “Great Society” programs of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Chapter 15 is the oldest of the essays collected here. It attempts to find coherence in the discourse surrounding the quite disparate set of programs grouped under the “Great Society” heading and to explain their appeal in the particular historical context. Chapter 16 explores how the concept of affirmative action, which would prove divisive in subsequent years, had its beginning 6 Political Argumentation in the United States in Johnson’s redefinition of an accepted term, “equal opportunity,” through dissociation and figurative analogy. In Chapter 17 I examine what became the limiting condition of support for the Great Society, when riots during the summer of 1967 seemed to undercut claims for the success of these programs. The need to denounce the riots while also emphasizing the need to address underlying social issues created a tension that Johnson could not overcome. Another sort of tension is considered in Chapter 18: how Martin Luther King, Jr.’s opposition to the Vietnam war – which later generations would find to be prophetic – was unpopular at the time and reflected negatively on his role as a civil rights leader, adding to challenges he was facing already. My coauthors and I explain this curious result in terms of a conflict of rhetorical trajectories. The idea of “trajectory” suggests that arguments create expectations about where an arguer will go next, and that violation of those expectations entails costs. Finally, Chapters 19 and 20 address more contemporary cases of political argumentation. Chapter 19 considers President Ronald Reagan’s shifting definitions of the terms “safety net” and “truly needy” in an attempt to convince Americans that the most important government efforts to help the poor were being retained even as overall spending on social programs was being cut. Chapter 20 explores comparisons of Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln that were invoked by others and by Obama himself during his first presidential campaign. The Obama-Lincoln comparison is used to illustrate different types of argument from historical analogy and to identify some of their strengths and weaknesses. With few exceptions, these essays remain unchanged from their original publication. I have added subheadings for clarity, inserted footnotes to explain some allusions that have become obscure with the passage of time, corrected some previously unnoticed typographical errors, and standardized the form of notes and references. I have resisted the temptation to update the references or to modify the major arguments. I would express some positions differently if I were rewriting the essays today. In particular, I would give more weight to the dominance of political conservatism in the United States over the past 35 years. For the most part, however, I still subscribe to the viewpoints expressed in these essays, and there is no essay with whose central thesis I would now disagree. Taken together, I believe these essays fairly represent my efforts to understand political argumentation in the United States. Introduction 7 Acknowledgments Independently of each other, two friends each encouraged me to assemble a collection such as this. Professor Edward Schiappa, formerly of the University of Minnesota and now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggested that there would be value in a thematic collection of representative scholarly articles of mine. Professor Ton van Haaften of the University of Leiden told me that such a collection would be useful in making my work more accessible to international audiences. I thanked them both for their suggestions and mentally filed their ideas away as an interesting project I might undertake “one of these days.” Frankly, I was worried about conveying the impression that I was now finished with writing or that I had closed out my career. What gave real impetus to the project was the urging of Professor Frans van Eemeren of the University of Amsterdam, a long-time friend and colleague, who told me that a collection of essays on U.S. political argumentation would fit squarely within the John Benjamins series on argumentation in context. Moreover, he said, such a niche ought to be filled quickly. Frans’s unique combination of encouragement and gentle prodding gave me the incentive to finish the project much faster than I otherwise would have. I am grateful for his support of this venture and for the inspirational example of his own prolific scholarship. Four of these essays were written jointly with coauthors. In each of these cases the work truly was a collaborative effort. I am grateful to Victoria J. Gallagher, George Dionisopoulos, Steven Goldzwig, Frank Tutzauer, and Carol MillerTutzauer for allowing me to include our joint efforts in this collection of my scholarship. I also am grateful to publishers for permission to reprint these essays; the individual permissions are acknowledged on a separate page. Once the 20 essays were selected, it proved to be a major task to reformat and in some cases re-enter them so that they were in a standard form and could be electronically edited and prepared for publication. I am deeply grateful to my wife Nikki for her timely and time-consuming assistance with this task. Nikki and I have been blessed with two wonderful children who have grown into mature and thoughtful adults. Each has found and married the perfect lifepartner, and all four of them are extremely close. Nikki and I are thrilled to be part of their lives and we rejoice in their careers and personal achievements. Reference Zarefsky, D. (1990). Lincoln, Douglas, and slavery: In the crucible of public debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. part i Early American political argumentation

Author David Zarefsky Isbn 978-9027211248 File size 1.8 MB Year 2014 Pages 396 Language English File format PDF Category Politics and Sociology Book Description: FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrDiggMySpaceShare In the United States, political argumentation occurs in institutionalized settings and the broader public forum, in efforts to resolve conflict and efforts to foster it, in settings with time limits and controversies that extend over centuries. From the ratification of the U.S. Constitution to the presidency of Barack Obama, this book contains twenty studies of U.S. political argumentation, grouped under four themes: early American political discourse, Abraham Lincoln’s political argumentation, argumentation about foreign policy, and public policy argumentation since the 1960s. Deploying methods of rhetorical criticism, argument analysis and evaluation, the studies are rich in contextual grounding and critical perspective. They integrate the European emphasis on politics as an argumentative context with the U.S. tradition of public address studies. Two essays have never before been published. The others are retrieved from journals and books published between 1979 and 2014. The introductory essay is new for this volume.     Download (1.8 MB) The Obama Doctrine in the Americas Framing The Rhetoric Of A Leader: An Analysis Of Obama’s Election Campaign Speeches Celebrity in Chief : A History of the Presidents and the Culture of Stardom We Called Him Rabbi Abraham : Lincoln and American Jewry, a Documentary History The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Load more posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *