Pub Date : 2021-07-20DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1949544
C. Coker, J. Reed
Abstract The 2020 Democratic presidential primaries involved the largest and most diverse slate of candidates in the modern era of party nominee selection, a diversity that allowed some candidates to reject neoliberal discourses endemic to American politics. In this essay, we analyze the 2020 Democratic primary debates to demonstrate the emergence of an alternative political economy that stands in opposition to standard economic orthodoxy. Candidates organized their critiques of the extant political economy around corruption, presenting it as rot at the heart of the present capitalist order, with Donald Trump more symptom than cause of America’s unjust and deeply flawed economic system. That rot compelled candidates to present an alternative in “economic patriotism” which posited obligation to the collective above and in opposition to neoliberal profit. The essay concludes by unpacking the implications of this break from orthodoxy in the campaign debate context.
{"title":"“This is a patriotism check”: Political economy, corruption, and duty to America in the 2020 primary debates","authors":"C. Coker, J. Reed","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949544","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 2020 Democratic presidential primaries involved the largest and most diverse slate of candidates in the modern era of party nominee selection, a diversity that allowed some candidates to reject neoliberal discourses endemic to American politics. In this essay, we analyze the 2020 Democratic primary debates to demonstrate the emergence of an alternative political economy that stands in opposition to standard economic orthodoxy. Candidates organized their critiques of the extant political economy around corruption, presenting it as rot at the heart of the present capitalist order, with Donald Trump more symptom than cause of America’s unjust and deeply flawed economic system. That rot compelled candidates to present an alternative in “economic patriotism” which posited obligation to the collective above and in opposition to neoliberal profit. The essay concludes by unpacking the implications of this break from orthodoxy in the campaign debate context.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84468321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-20DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542
D. K. Scott, Mike Chanslor, Jenny Dixon
Abstract This article investigates the level of formality in presidential debates. Using content analytic techniques, this study documents trends in address terms (ranging from the use of honorific titles to interpersonal insults) in presidential debates from 1948 to 2020. An availability sample of 241 debates (94% of all presidential primary and general election debates), including 21,857 coding units, reveal an overall decline in formal communication via the use of appropriate honorific titles and subsequent growth in informal and disrespectful references. Incivility spiral theory offers an interpretative framework that links the increase in informal patterns of communication to the growing level of incivility in debate discourse. Within this framework, it is speculated that a shift toward informality could be linked to a larger incivility spiral that will continue into the future. Beyond the link to incivility, it is also argued the shift toward informality may have a range of unique negative consequences.
{"title":"U.S. presidential debates 1948–2020: an issue of formality and respect","authors":"D. K. Scott, Mike Chanslor, Jenny Dixon","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates the level of formality in presidential debates. Using content analytic techniques, this study documents trends in address terms (ranging from the use of honorific titles to interpersonal insults) in presidential debates from 1948 to 2020. An availability sample of 241 debates (94% of all presidential primary and general election debates), including 21,857 coding units, reveal an overall decline in formal communication via the use of appropriate honorific titles and subsequent growth in informal and disrespectful references. Incivility spiral theory offers an interpretative framework that links the increase in informal patterns of communication to the growing level of incivility in debate discourse. Within this framework, it is speculated that a shift toward informality could be linked to a larger incivility spiral that will continue into the future. Beyond the link to incivility, it is also argued the shift toward informality may have a range of unique negative consequences.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75354693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-08DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1942602
David Bailey
Abstract In this essay I offer a reconsideration of President George H.W. Bush’s rhetorical campaign for the Gulf War. I argue that Bush’s rhetoric was an instance of simulated atonement—a variant of the atonement rhetorical form. Bush’s use of this form enabled him to both sanitize and ennoble the violence of the war as self-redemptive corrective action for the public memory traumas of the Vietnam era. Bush yawed between dissociation and analogy—first entirely dissociating Vietnam from the Gulf War and later embracing the Gulf War as analogical redemption for Vietnam. I also briefly consider an example of genuine atonement offered by one of President Bush’s successors.
{"title":"Charitable violence: George HW Bush and simulated atonement for Vietnam","authors":"David Bailey","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1942602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1942602","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this essay I offer a reconsideration of President George H.W. Bush’s rhetorical campaign for the Gulf War. I argue that Bush’s rhetoric was an instance of simulated atonement—a variant of the atonement rhetorical form. Bush’s use of this form enabled him to both sanitize and ennoble the violence of the war as self-redemptive corrective action for the public memory traumas of the Vietnam era. Bush yawed between dissociation and analogy—first entirely dissociating Vietnam from the Gulf War and later embracing the Gulf War as analogical redemption for Vietnam. I also briefly consider an example of genuine atonement offered by one of President Bush’s successors.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87422420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-08DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535
R. C. Rowland
Abstract After what was widely perceived to be a disastrous first debate in 2020, the second debate was viewed as a vast improvement, a shift that fulfilled the pedagogical functions of presidential debates for educating the public. A close analysis of the arguments in the two debates, however, does not support this judgment. Rather, it indicates that the 2020 presidential debates functioned more as political theater than they did as public argument. A change in format could shift the incentives facing the candidates, encouraging them to build strong arguments in favor of their position.
{"title":"The 2020 presidential debates: reasoned argument or political theater","authors":"R. C. Rowland","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After what was widely perceived to be a disastrous first debate in 2020, the second debate was viewed as a vast improvement, a shift that fulfilled the pedagogical functions of presidential debates for educating the public. A close analysis of the arguments in the two debates, however, does not support this judgment. Rather, it indicates that the 2020 presidential debates functioned more as political theater than they did as public argument. A change in format could shift the incentives facing the candidates, encouraging them to build strong arguments in favor of their position.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81934762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1935669
Yun Xie
{"title":"Is there a missing on-balance premise in conductive argument?","authors":"Yun Xie","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1935669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1935669","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80235905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786
K. Maddux
Abstract Televised deliberation has been celebrated for its accessibility and derided for its tendency toward spectacle. Deliberative theorists and practitioners seek ways to make deliberation more inclusive because widespread participation facilitates deliberative legitimacy. This analysis operates between these two challenges, to consider how the daytime television show The View, drawing upon the televisual logics of spectacle and intimacy, nonetheless offers a public pedagogy of deliberation that provides resources for facilitating inclusive deliberation. I argue that the show models deliberators overcoming typical barriers to deliberation, such as disagreement and discomfort, with five deliberative habits: everyday talk, civility, agreement, friendship, and humor.
{"title":"Viewing deliberation: daytime television’s public pedagogy of inclusion","authors":"K. Maddux","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Televised deliberation has been celebrated for its accessibility and derided for its tendency toward spectacle. Deliberative theorists and practitioners seek ways to make deliberation more inclusive because widespread participation facilitates deliberative legitimacy. This analysis operates between these two challenges, to consider how the daytime television show The View, drawing upon the televisual logics of spectacle and intimacy, nonetheless offers a public pedagogy of deliberation that provides resources for facilitating inclusive deliberation. I argue that the show models deliberators overcoming typical barriers to deliberation, such as disagreement and discomfort, with five deliberative habits: everyday talk, civility, agreement, friendship, and humor.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79835302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1933343
Alexander Hiland
{"title":"Resolved: debate can revolutionize education and help save our democracy","authors":"Alexander Hiland","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1933343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1933343","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85122947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1933344
Michael J. Hoppmann
{"title":"The enthymeme: syllogism, reasoning and narrative in ancient rhetoric","authors":"Michael J. Hoppmann","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1933344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1933344","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75131641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-19DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1910178
Theon E. Hill
{"title":"Peculiar rhetoric: slavery, freedom, and the african colonization movement","authors":"Theon E. Hill","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1910178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1910178","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86158154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-29DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1905941
J. Johnson
{"title":"The gifting logos: expertise in the digital commons","authors":"J. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1905941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1905941","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86664801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：