诊断特朗普主义的盲目影响:对普卢塔的反驳

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Critical Review Pub Date : 2019-04-03 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2019.1690220
Charles U. Zug
{"title":"诊断特朗普主义的盲目影响:对普卢塔的反驳","authors":"Charles U. Zug","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2019.1690220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Anne C. Pluta’s reply to my critique perpetuates the errors that undermined the article I criticized. Pluta dismisses out of hand my suggestion that her mistakes are the result of the particular lens through which she and much of the political science community view the American presidency. Yet this suggestion has the merit of explaining why she contends that piling up nineteenth-century instances of presidential public “speech” undermines Jeffrey Tulis’s contention that the nature of presidential speech changed decisively at the beginning of the twentieth century, such that rhetorical, often-demagogic appeals over the heads of Congress displaced public speech that affirmed the values of republican, constitutional government.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"242 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2019.1690220","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnosing the Blinding Effects of Trumpism: Rejoinder to Pluta\",\"authors\":\"Charles U. Zug\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08913811.2019.1690220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Anne C. Pluta’s reply to my critique perpetuates the errors that undermined the article I criticized. Pluta dismisses out of hand my suggestion that her mistakes are the result of the particular lens through which she and much of the political science community view the American presidency. Yet this suggestion has the merit of explaining why she contends that piling up nineteenth-century instances of presidential public “speech” undermines Jeffrey Tulis’s contention that the nature of presidential speech changed decisively at the beginning of the twentieth century, such that rhetorical, often-demagogic appeals over the heads of Congress displaced public speech that affirmed the values of republican, constitutional government.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"242 - 254\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2019.1690220\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2019.1690220\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2019.1690220","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

安妮·c·普鲁塔对我的批评的回复延续了我所批评文章的错误。我认为,她的错误是由于她和许多政治科学界人士看待美国总统职位的特殊视角造成的,普鲁塔当即驳斥了这一说法。然而,这一建议的优点在于,解释了为什么她认为,堆积19世纪总统公开“演讲”的实例,削弱了杰弗里·图利斯的论点,即总统演讲的性质在20世纪初发生了决定性的变化,这样,对国会领导人的修辞,往往是蛊惑人心的呼吁,取代了肯定共和党宪政价值观的公开演讲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diagnosing the Blinding Effects of Trumpism: Rejoinder to Pluta
ABSTRACT Anne C. Pluta’s reply to my critique perpetuates the errors that undermined the article I criticized. Pluta dismisses out of hand my suggestion that her mistakes are the result of the particular lens through which she and much of the political science community view the American presidency. Yet this suggestion has the merit of explaining why she contends that piling up nineteenth-century instances of presidential public “speech” undermines Jeffrey Tulis’s contention that the nature of presidential speech changed decisively at the beginning of the twentieth century, such that rhetorical, often-demagogic appeals over the heads of Congress displaced public speech that affirmed the values of republican, constitutional government.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Review
Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Depolarization Without Reconciliation Education and the Epistemological Crisis in the Age of ChatGPT Republicanizing Leviathan: Kant’s Cosmopolitan Synthesis of Hobbes and Rousseau Who Is Haunted by the Shadow Of God? Dialectical Notes on Michael Rosen’s Narrative of (Failed) Secularization Six Variations on Michael Rosen’s The Shadow of God
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1