In the aftermath of Watergate and the ‘malaise’ that characterised the Carter administration, Ron... more In the aftermath of Watergate and the ‘malaise’ that characterised the Carter administration, Ronald Reagan defined the 1980s and the larger conservative movement by crafting a narrative that called for what he delineated as the rediscovery of American greatness. This narrative astutely combined the traditional conservative theme of preservation of the past with an optimistic view of the future more commonly associated with liberalism. In order to understand the power of Reagan’s narrative, this chapter examines key moments in his presidency that exemplify three themes: morality, strength, and patriotism. He communicated those themes, we argue, through deft use of narrative and metaphor. Starting with his acceptance speech in 1980, we look to his State of the Union speeches, the Challenger address, his speech at Brandenburg Gate, and his farewell address in 1989. These speeches cover the scope of Reagan’s presidency and encapsulate the main components of his vision for American national identity. This chapter proceeds in four parts. First, we examine the historical context of the election and presidency of Ronald Reagan. Second, we detail Reagan’s domestic agenda, which focused on rediscovering American values at home. Next, we turn to Reagan’s rhetoric as it centred on reasserting American values and spreading American democracy. We conclude with a discussion of the ways in which Reagan’s rhetoric crafted contemporary conservative political discourse and culture.
One week after Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama and led to the... more One week after Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama and led to the evacuation of millions of Americans, Mrs. Barbara Bush-former First Lady and mother of the current president-uttered an observation that departed from the distressing tone of most of the media coverage of this disaster. While touring the makeshift shelter in the Houston Astrodome sports complex, she told one American Public Media radio program interviewer the following: What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this-this is working very well for them. Her remarks provoked responses from all over the globe. White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland regarded the statement as a "personal observation." Fox News conservative media personality Bill O'Reilly stated, "Madam, with all due respect, you have been wealthy too long." The tabloid New York Daily News commented that this statement must have been uttered by "the most chipper visitor to the Astrodome" who thought everything was going "honky-dory" for the evacuees. And foreign newspapers considered her remarks as "elitist," "hurtful," "inaccurate," and "insensitive." How are Mrs. Bush's comments germane to a review of Mary Stuckey's Defining Americans? At first blush, they appear tangential to Stuckey's project. Mrs. Bush is the spouse of a former president, and Stuckey's book focuses on presidential rhetoric (speeches delivered by nine presidents with commentary on the two most recent presidents). Mrs. Bush was specifically discussing a subset of Americans, and Stuckey's book focuses on discussions of "all Americans." Mrs. Bush was "on stage" (talking to a reporter) but she clearly was not prepared for this speaking situation; Stuckey's book, in contrast, addresses carefully crafted public remarks. In these ways, Mrs. Bush's interview is somewhat removed from Defining Americans: The Presidency and National Identity. Upon deeper reflection, however, Mrs. Bush's words call attention to many of the central assumptions about presidential rhetoric undergirding Stuckey's analysis. First, the voice of the White House is visible and commands domestic and international attention. Second, that voice can define power relations, identifying those who are included and excluded through grand statements, subtle pronoun choices, and scripted and offhand comments. Third, this voice is conservative, tied to the forces and institutional arrangements that propelled its electoral coalitions. Fourth, the voice acknowledges and honors static power arrangements; often the simple act of verbalizing that which is taken for granted (particularly with regard to sensitive issues of race, class, and
Whatever else can be said about Donald Trump and the 2016 election—and many things are being and ... more Whatever else can be said about Donald Trump and the 2016 election—and many things are being and will continue to be said—he is widely understood as a harbinger of change. He is also widely understood as creating the potential for change in ways that are well outside the norm for U.S. national politics, whether it is because he is bringing populism to national government, threatening the nation with a form of fascism, or merely creating change through a chaotic and disorganized administrative style. Whatever one thinks of his politics, there is widespread agreement that the Trump administration brings something new and different to the American political scene. Trump is also evidence for the uncertainty with which we face major political change. It is generally true, of course, that political observers, academics, and pundits constantly look for signs of political change. Comfortable with the routines of politics, they search for the things that stand out—the new, the different, that which is potentially game changing. Members of the mass media are especially prone to this tendency, as journalists seem to have an increasingly short attention span and perpetually look for
This essay offers a metaphoric analysis of Donald J. Trump’s announcement speech. We argue that b... more This essay offers a metaphoric analysis of Donald J. Trump’s announcement speech. We argue that by focusing on two of his metaphors, the presidency as a business and his promise to build a wall, we are provided a better understanding of the symbolic structures that underlie his presidency, explaining both the nature of his support and the way he approaches his job as president.
This essay analyzes the 1964 and 1968 Republican campaigns as a case study in the rhetoric of com... more This essay analyzes the 1964 and 1968 Republican campaigns as a case study in the rhetoric of complicit civility, a strategy of elite cooperation in which one rhetor wields a subtle rhetoric of exclusion while other rhetors, who recognize the undemocratic aspects of that rhetoric but also its potential electoral appeal, challenge the rhetor but not the rhetoric, instead shifting the political argument to other grounds. This combination endorses antidemocratic rhetoric while normalizing it as a routine part of democratic political processes. As a strategy practiced by elites, complicit civility entrenches extant hierarchies and authorizes exclusion.
Like practically everyone else in the fall of 2015, when I began to assemble the essays for this ... more Like practically everyone else in the fall of 2015, when I began to assemble the essays for this special issue, I did not expect either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders to have the staying power and influence that they had. And yet, as these essays reveal, maybe I should have seen these candidacies coming. The face of our presidential campaigns is changing, and the authors whose work appears here point to some of these changes. They also point to some of the ways that rhetorical analyses are foundational to any understanding of U.S. politics. When I write of the campaign's "changing face," I mean that phrase in two ways. First, and most obviously, it refers to the ways in which different faces are now routine parts of primary and general elections. The candidates themselves are men and women, white, African American, and Latin@. Candidate coalitions strive to include both white and black voters, but also increasingly Latin@s. 1 Women are an increasingly important constituency. 2 And as the diversity of the U.S. electorate increases, the centrality of nonwhite voters will only increase. 3 These demographic shifts have very different consequences for primary and general election campaigns, 4 and play out very differently between the major political parties. 5 Fear of this diversity makes it possible for Republicans to debate the viability of a wall between the U.S. and Mexican border, for instance, while they remain haunted by the possibility that demographics are destiny, and that they are sealing their own political fate with such maneuvers. So the ways in which the physical face of U.S. politics have and are changing are an important aspect of our campaigns. Second, I use the facial metaphor to point to a related but also broader element of national campaigns: the ideological landscape in which they occur. Popular culture has always been an element of political campaigning-we have had torchlight parades and jugs of whiskey shaped like log cabins; buttons, posters, bumper stickers, and all kinds of memorabilia. Some of these are created by campaigns with the intention of raising money, motivating voters, and adding an element of fun to the campaign. Some of them are more bottom up-created by voters with the intention of honoring or parodying campaigns. Popular culture and its texts also influence campaigns. Films, books, and ads, for example, reflect elements of national culture and also influence that culture. Our popular culture provides a complicated backdrop against which campaigns occur and we need to take it seriously as an element constituting those campaigns. They open us to some kinds of ideological possibility while closing off other options. Those landscapes can be welcoming, providing people with evidence that they are part of, even integral to, the nation. They can also be menacing, even deadly, indicating to others among us that their presence threatens some definitions of Americanism and lending encouragement to those who would meet that threat with force. Among the issues that were contended in 2016, the possibilities and limits of inclusion were prominent among them, as many members of our national community-African Americans, Latin@s, Muslims, and those who identify as LGBTQ-met expressions of hatred with strength, and encountered violence with courage.
In the aftermath of Watergate and the ‘malaise’ that characterised the Carter administration, Ron... more In the aftermath of Watergate and the ‘malaise’ that characterised the Carter administration, Ronald Reagan defined the 1980s and the larger conservative movement by crafting a narrative that called for what he delineated as the rediscovery of American greatness. This narrative astutely combined the traditional conservative theme of preservation of the past with an optimistic view of the future more commonly associated with liberalism. In order to understand the power of Reagan’s narrative, this chapter examines key moments in his presidency that exemplify three themes: morality, strength, and patriotism. He communicated those themes, we argue, through deft use of narrative and metaphor. Starting with his acceptance speech in 1980, we look to his State of the Union speeches, the Challenger address, his speech at Brandenburg Gate, and his farewell address in 1989. These speeches cover the scope of Reagan’s presidency and encapsulate the main components of his vision for American national identity. This chapter proceeds in four parts. First, we examine the historical context of the election and presidency of Ronald Reagan. Second, we detail Reagan’s domestic agenda, which focused on rediscovering American values at home. Next, we turn to Reagan’s rhetoric as it centred on reasserting American values and spreading American democracy. We conclude with a discussion of the ways in which Reagan’s rhetoric crafted contemporary conservative political discourse and culture.
One week after Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama and led to the... more One week after Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama and led to the evacuation of millions of Americans, Mrs. Barbara Bush-former First Lady and mother of the current president-uttered an observation that departed from the distressing tone of most of the media coverage of this disaster. While touring the makeshift shelter in the Houston Astrodome sports complex, she told one American Public Media radio program interviewer the following: What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this-this is working very well for them. Her remarks provoked responses from all over the globe. White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland regarded the statement as a "personal observation." Fox News conservative media personality Bill O'Reilly stated, "Madam, with all due respect, you have been wealthy too long." The tabloid New York Daily News commented that this statement must have been uttered by "the most chipper visitor to the Astrodome" who thought everything was going "honky-dory" for the evacuees. And foreign newspapers considered her remarks as "elitist," "hurtful," "inaccurate," and "insensitive." How are Mrs. Bush's comments germane to a review of Mary Stuckey's Defining Americans? At first blush, they appear tangential to Stuckey's project. Mrs. Bush is the spouse of a former president, and Stuckey's book focuses on presidential rhetoric (speeches delivered by nine presidents with commentary on the two most recent presidents). Mrs. Bush was specifically discussing a subset of Americans, and Stuckey's book focuses on discussions of "all Americans." Mrs. Bush was "on stage" (talking to a reporter) but she clearly was not prepared for this speaking situation; Stuckey's book, in contrast, addresses carefully crafted public remarks. In these ways, Mrs. Bush's interview is somewhat removed from Defining Americans: The Presidency and National Identity. Upon deeper reflection, however, Mrs. Bush's words call attention to many of the central assumptions about presidential rhetoric undergirding Stuckey's analysis. First, the voice of the White House is visible and commands domestic and international attention. Second, that voice can define power relations, identifying those who are included and excluded through grand statements, subtle pronoun choices, and scripted and offhand comments. Third, this voice is conservative, tied to the forces and institutional arrangements that propelled its electoral coalitions. Fourth, the voice acknowledges and honors static power arrangements; often the simple act of verbalizing that which is taken for granted (particularly with regard to sensitive issues of race, class, and
Whatever else can be said about Donald Trump and the 2016 election—and many things are being and ... more Whatever else can be said about Donald Trump and the 2016 election—and many things are being and will continue to be said—he is widely understood as a harbinger of change. He is also widely understood as creating the potential for change in ways that are well outside the norm for U.S. national politics, whether it is because he is bringing populism to national government, threatening the nation with a form of fascism, or merely creating change through a chaotic and disorganized administrative style. Whatever one thinks of his politics, there is widespread agreement that the Trump administration brings something new and different to the American political scene. Trump is also evidence for the uncertainty with which we face major political change. It is generally true, of course, that political observers, academics, and pundits constantly look for signs of political change. Comfortable with the routines of politics, they search for the things that stand out—the new, the different, that which is potentially game changing. Members of the mass media are especially prone to this tendency, as journalists seem to have an increasingly short attention span and perpetually look for
This essay offers a metaphoric analysis of Donald J. Trump’s announcement speech. We argue that b... more This essay offers a metaphoric analysis of Donald J. Trump’s announcement speech. We argue that by focusing on two of his metaphors, the presidency as a business and his promise to build a wall, we are provided a better understanding of the symbolic structures that underlie his presidency, explaining both the nature of his support and the way he approaches his job as president.
This essay analyzes the 1964 and 1968 Republican campaigns as a case study in the rhetoric of com... more This essay analyzes the 1964 and 1968 Republican campaigns as a case study in the rhetoric of complicit civility, a strategy of elite cooperation in which one rhetor wields a subtle rhetoric of exclusion while other rhetors, who recognize the undemocratic aspects of that rhetoric but also its potential electoral appeal, challenge the rhetor but not the rhetoric, instead shifting the political argument to other grounds. This combination endorses antidemocratic rhetoric while normalizing it as a routine part of democratic political processes. As a strategy practiced by elites, complicit civility entrenches extant hierarchies and authorizes exclusion.
Like practically everyone else in the fall of 2015, when I began to assemble the essays for this ... more Like practically everyone else in the fall of 2015, when I began to assemble the essays for this special issue, I did not expect either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders to have the staying power and influence that they had. And yet, as these essays reveal, maybe I should have seen these candidacies coming. The face of our presidential campaigns is changing, and the authors whose work appears here point to some of these changes. They also point to some of the ways that rhetorical analyses are foundational to any understanding of U.S. politics. When I write of the campaign's "changing face," I mean that phrase in two ways. First, and most obviously, it refers to the ways in which different faces are now routine parts of primary and general elections. The candidates themselves are men and women, white, African American, and Latin@. Candidate coalitions strive to include both white and black voters, but also increasingly Latin@s. 1 Women are an increasingly important constituency. 2 And as the diversity of the U.S. electorate increases, the centrality of nonwhite voters will only increase. 3 These demographic shifts have very different consequences for primary and general election campaigns, 4 and play out very differently between the major political parties. 5 Fear of this diversity makes it possible for Republicans to debate the viability of a wall between the U.S. and Mexican border, for instance, while they remain haunted by the possibility that demographics are destiny, and that they are sealing their own political fate with such maneuvers. So the ways in which the physical face of U.S. politics have and are changing are an important aspect of our campaigns. Second, I use the facial metaphor to point to a related but also broader element of national campaigns: the ideological landscape in which they occur. Popular culture has always been an element of political campaigning-we have had torchlight parades and jugs of whiskey shaped like log cabins; buttons, posters, bumper stickers, and all kinds of memorabilia. Some of these are created by campaigns with the intention of raising money, motivating voters, and adding an element of fun to the campaign. Some of them are more bottom up-created by voters with the intention of honoring or parodying campaigns. Popular culture and its texts also influence campaigns. Films, books, and ads, for example, reflect elements of national culture and also influence that culture. Our popular culture provides a complicated backdrop against which campaigns occur and we need to take it seriously as an element constituting those campaigns. They open us to some kinds of ideological possibility while closing off other options. Those landscapes can be welcoming, providing people with evidence that they are part of, even integral to, the nation. They can also be menacing, even deadly, indicating to others among us that their presence threatens some definitions of Americanism and lending encouragement to those who would meet that threat with force. Among the issues that were contended in 2016, the possibilities and limits of inclusion were prominent among them, as many members of our national community-African Americans, Latin@s, Muslims, and those who identify as LGBTQ-met expressions of hatred with strength, and encountered violence with courage.
This essay considers questions about civility raised in the discourse responding to the January 2... more This essay considers questions about civility raised in the discourse responding to the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Arizona. Focusing on two sites of discord-the debate in the media and President Obama's address at the memorial service for the victims-our analysis identifıes two conceptions of civility and their corresponding assumptions about democracy and community, provides a critique of both conceptions, and offers a conceptual framework for rhetorical critics studying civility.
Co-edited volume that expands and amplifies methods for studying presidential communication in th... more Co-edited volume that expands and amplifies methods for studying presidential communication in the modern era.
Uploads
Papers by Mary Stuckey