James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Spring 2018 The confirmation of Betsy DeVos: Polarization, populism, and moral foundations in U.S. political rhetoric Jacob William Wrasse Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the Social Influence and Political Communication Commons Recommended Citation Wrasse, Jacob William, "The onfirc mation of Betsy DeVos: Polarization, populism, and moral foundations in U.S. political rhetoric" (2018). Masters Theses. 566. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/566 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Confirmation of Betsy DeVos: Polarization, Populism, and Moral Foundations in U.S. Political Rhetoric Jacob William Wrasse A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts School of Communication Studies May 2018 FACULTY COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Dr. Dan Schill Committee Members: Dr. Susan Opt Dr. Lars Kristiansen Acknowledgements I want to begin by thanking my thesis director, Dr. Dan Schill, for his help on this project and the vice presidential debate paper that we published together. Dan, your mentorship and guidance have helped me mature as a researcher and an observer of political communication. Additionally, I wanted to thank my committee members, Drs. Susan Opt and Lars Kristiansen, for their guidance and insight as I drafted this thesis. Dr. Opt, your attention to detail undoubtedly improved the coherence of this work, and my experience in your rhetorical criticism class introduced me to the Rhetoric of Social Intervention. Dr. K., your perspective and notes always encouraged me to view the world beyond the lens of partisan politics and your suggestions helped keep the claims of this project reasonable and supportable. My thanks to all three of you for the countless hours of revisions and drafts you reviewed on my behalf. I deeply appreciate it. I also want to express my deepest appreciation to the JMU Communication and Advocacy Class of 2018 for their emotional and intellectual support as we journeyed together through the experience of graduate school. I will forever count myself lucky to have worked alongside such a remarkable group of passionate, fiercely intelligent, genuinely good people. I bid you all a very heartfelt thank you, and wish you the best of luck. Even as I write this, I am surprised I undertook this project and, indeed, that I went to graduate school, and I must thank the incredible teachers and mentors I have had the pleasure of learning from and working with throughout my education. From the School District of Durand, my deepest gratitude to all the instructors, administrators, and coaches who made a difference in my life. In particular, my thanks to Jean Hermann, ii Mike Perry, Bob Zika, Brenda Gray, Dave Schneider, Mary Funk, Jim Seipel, Breanna Wozniczka, Bill Clouse, Tamara Sharpe, Greg Doverspike, Jerry Walters, Tony Hansen, and Brittney Maslonka for giving me countless opportunities and endless support. To my forensics coaches, Lynn Scala, Barb Kallstrom, Kim Erickson, and Ella Shaw, thank you for fostering my love for public speaking and persuasion—this project would not be possible without it. And finally, my deepest thanks to Nancy Flanagan for seeing potential in me and involving me in countless novel opportunities in broadcasting and learning. My experience with Durand’s public schools set me on a lifelong course for success, and I will always be impressed by and indebted to professionals who devote their lives to public education. I would also like to thank the faculty and staff at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. My experiences with the hundreds of dedicated, student-centered professionals at UW-Eau Claire ignited a passion for higher education that drove me to study communication and advocacy at the graduate level. In particular, I must thank two of the most influential figures in my life: my forensics coaches, Karen Morris and Kelly Jo Wright. Every positive experience in my life, from Student Senate to graduate school, stemmed from my experience in undergraduate forensics competition. In addition, my thanks to my academic mentors Drs. Mary Hoffman, Martha Fay, and Geoff Peterson, for their support and guidance even when I was not at the top of my game. Finally, to the incredible administrators with whom I had some of the most significant professional experiences of my life: Drs. Jim Schmidt, Pat Kleine, Beth Hellwig, and Joe Abhold, as well as Mike Rindo, Jason Jon Anderson, Kim Way, and M.J. Brukardt. It was an honor iii to work with all of you, and I am eternally grateful for the formative professional and educational experience I received at UWEC. Given the subject of this thesis, I’d like to thank Ryan and Suzanne Wrasse for giving me the opportunity to walk on the floor of the U.S. Senate while it was not in session. This experience, along with a handful of trips to the Senate gallery and the offices of the senators for whom they worked, fanned the flames of my existing interest in U.S. government. Watching U.S. Senators debate issues of national importance and then, later, getting the chance to stand at their desks made me realize these figures, so often seen only through media, are humans, capable of being persuaded and improving their communication. Finally, I want to thank my family—Bill, Ben, and Kris—for their emotional and financial support as I wrote this thesis, even though I didn’t always keep in touch. My love and gratitude to Maddy, who tolerated me as I wrote this even though I was often cranky, sleep-deprived, and absent-minded. This would not have been possible without you four—thank you. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................ii Table of Contents................................................................................................................v List of Tables ...................................................................................................................vii Abstract ..........................................................................................................................viii I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 II. Literature Review ..........................................................................................................9 Polarization.............................................................................................................9 Populism................................................................................................................15 Framing, Social Intuitionism, and Moral Foundations..........................................20 III. Methods.......................................................................................................................38 IV. Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Hearing......................................43 Social System.........................................................................................................45 Republican Naming: Mainstream and Qualified...................................................47 Primary Intervention: Democrats say DeVos is Unqualified and Incompetent.....53 Secondary Interventions: The Golden Rule and charter school accountability.....67 Alexander’s “Golden Rule” ......................................................................69 Charter School Accountability...................................................................78 Moral Rhetoric.......................................................................................................83 V. Senators’ Press Releases ..............................................................................................87 Social System.........................................................................................................87 Republican naming: A “small government” nominee...........................................88 v Primary Intervention: An “unqualified partisan appointee”..................................91 Moral Rhetoric.......................................................................................................98 VI. Speeches on the Senate Floor ...................................................................................102 Social System.......................................................................................................103 Republican naming: Democrats are “obstructionists without a goal” ................103 Primary Intervention: DeVos is “undeserving of confirmation”.........................106 Secondary Interventions......................................................................................113 Communication from constituencies.......................................................113 “Charter schools” vs. “Privatization”......................................................116 Moral Rhetoric.....................................................................................................119 VII. Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................................124