The contemporary presidency and the rhetoric of promoted crisis
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explain the rhetorical characteristics of presidential crisis discourse and how it functions within the larger context of political discourse. The primary research question which guided this study was: What rhetorical characteristics typify the crisis discourse of Kennedy on Cuba, Johnson on Tonkin Gulf, Nixon on Cambodia, Ford on the Mayaguez, Carter on Iran, and Reagan on Grenada? To answer this question, a second and corollary purpose of this study was to refine a method which permits the close, textual analysis of discourse and the comparison of that discourse with other rhetoric. This dissertation first isolated the four major ways in which such "generic criticism" has been conducted in the past: neo-Aristotelian, formal, factoral, and social action approaches. To improve upon previous efforts, this study then integrated the theory of dramatism with generic principles to provide a cogent method for the study and comparison of the grammar (situation, substance, style) and the rhetoric (identificational appeals) of discourse. This method was applied to the crisis discourse of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan. The results of this critical application showed that contemporary presidents, indeed, talked about foreign crises in very similar ways. The ratios of terms for scene-purpose and scene-act regularly characterized the "situation" of crisis discourse. Crisis promoters also tended to substantiate their talk with highly purposive, directional properties. In addition, presidential rhetors seemed predisposed toward a style in which violent acts functioned as proof of the agent's credibility. Finally, presidents tended to rely upon either antithetical or undeclared implicit appeals in their crisis rhetoric. Each individual case study showed unique rhetorical traits, as well: Kennedy indulged in Cold War rhetoric; Johnson balanced strength and restraint in his discourse; Nixon's talk was full of contradictions and thus exemplified a rhetorical form known as the grotesque; Ford made strategic use of silence and sparse public talk in his crisis promotion; Carter's passive, principled discourse demonstrated his perpetual idealism; and lastly, Reagan portrayed the U.S. as a noble hero with a sacred mission in the world.
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Vibbert, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Communication|Public administration
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.