A Critique of Candidates' Styles in the 1976 Presidential Campaign
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
78-5920 SCHUSTER, Camille Passler, 1950- A CRITIQUE OF CANDIDATES’ STYLES IN THE 1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1977 Speech University Microfilms International,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 @ 1977 CAM ILLE PASSLER SCHUSTER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PLEASE NOTE: Dissertation photographed without pages 180-18]. Not available for mi crofilmi ng. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS A CRITIQUE OP CANDIDATES* STYLES IN THE 1976 PHESUENTIAL CAMPAIGN DISSERTATION Presented In I&rtial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Camille Passler Schuster, B.S. in Ed., M. A. ***** The Olio State University 1977 Reading Committeet Approved by Dr. James L. Golden Dr. John J. Mahay Dr, Victor D. Wall, Jr. X j Adviser Department of Communication ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the course of pursuing this study many people offered their assistance and encouragement. Without their help, the research never would have been completed. Some of these people deserve special mention. First, I would like to acknowledge and thank the press secretaries working for the Democratic and Republican parties in Ohio who provided me with press passes during the campaign. Without their help, I might not have been able to obtain copies of Jimmy Carter's and Gerald Ford's "set speeches." Joseph Pilotta deserves recognition and thanks for assistance above and beyond the call of duty. His help was most instrumental in the completion of this study. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to John Hakay and Vic Wall for offering their unhesitating support and encouragement at a time when I most needed it. Next, I wish to extend a special note of thanks to James Golden for the freedom to do this study. Without his trust and faith in me, I would not have been able to pursue my unorthodox ideas, develop an unusual methodology for rhetorical criticism, and answer questions about political communication which were important to me. Inahk you for the confidence to allow me to follow my instincts. One other person played a significant role in this research process. Without his constant questioning, which was so frustrating, and. constant support, which was so comforting, I would never have met the challenge of being who I am. Thanks, Rich, my most difficult critic and most ardent supporter, a true friend. iii VITA March 29, 1 9 5 0 .............. Born, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1971 . • . • ................ B.S. in Ed., University of Wisconson-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin Major: Elementary Education 1973~197^« « .............. Tbachlng Assistant, Department of Speech and Theatre, Arizona State University, Tbmpe, Arizona 197^ ............. M.A., Arizona State University, Tbmpe, Arizona Major: Speech-Communication I974-I977. Teaching Associate, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS Is That What You Meant? I Didn't Know That, with Gail T. Fhirhurst. Small Group Communication: Selected Readings, Victor D. Wall, Jr. (Ed.), Columbus, Ohio: Collegiate Publishing, Inc., 1976 FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Communication Studies In Rhetorical Theory: Professors James L. Golden, Robert Davis, John J. Makay Studies in Political Communication: Professors Bruce Merrill, Katherine Meyer, Aage Clausen, James L. Golden, Goodwin Berquist, William E. Brown iv Studies in Communication Theorys Professors Donald Cegala, Leonard C. Hawes, Virginia McDermott, Robert Nofsinger, William E. Arnold Minor Fields Methodology Studies in Rhetorical Criticisms Professors William E. Brown, James L. Golden, Robert Davis Studies in Qualitative Methodologys Professors Leonard C. Hawes, Enrico Quarantelli v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................... 11 VITA ...................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES............................................ x Chapter I. THE COMMUNICATIVE DIMENSIONOF A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN............................................ 1 Introduction, ................... 1 Context of Campaign Speaking.................... 3 Research Question for Studying the 1976 Presidential Campaign ................ ..... 11 II. HE RI-ENSUTICAL-RHETORICAL CRITICISM........... 14 A Type of Hermeneutical-Rhetorical Criticism. 18 Procedures........................................ 38 III. THE AUDIENCE.......................... ............ 48 Ford's Style. ........ .................... 48 Carter's Style. .................. 60 Comparison of Styles................ 71 IV. CANDIDATES........................................... 73 Ford' s Style.............. ... ................... 73 Carter's Style.................................. 98 Comparison of Styles...... ... .................... 115 V. POLITICS............................................. 117 Ford’s Style...................... 117 Carter's Style......... .. .............. 138 Comparison of Styles...... ... .................... 152 vi Page VI. THE ECONOMY ...................................... 154- Fbrd's Style............ 154- . Carter's Style. ....... ..... 167 Comparison of Styles.......... 193 VII. VOTING............................................ 196 Fbrd's Style. ......... ................ 196 Garter's Style. .......................... 199 Comparison of Styles.......... 224 VIII. DEFENSE AND A VISION. .......................... 228 Fbrd's Style............ 229 Carter's Style. ......... 24-5 IX. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS...................... 301 Style and Campaign Rhetoric.................. 302 Hermeneutical-Rhetorical Criticism. ........ 313 Accountability. .... ........ ........ 31& Serendipitous Findings. 317 Summary ...................................... 324- APPENDIX A .................................................... 326 B .................................................... 342 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................. 34-7 vii LIST OF TABLES Page 1 Conceptions Grounded in Words of Speaker ...... 41 2 Assumption 15(f ) .................. 44 3 Assumption 2(f ). .... ................. 52 4 Assumption 6(f). ............................ 56 5 Assumption 17(f ) .... ................... 53 6 Assumption l(C). ......... ............. 6l 7 Assumption 3(c). • .••••••••••••.••• 65 8 Assumption 3(f )...................... 75 9 Assumption 7 (f ). ................... 79 10 Assumption 20(f).... ................. 85 n Assumption 21 (f ) ................ 94 12 Assumption 2(c)..................................... 99 13 Assumption 5(c).......................... ...... 10 5 14 Assumption 6(c). ................ 112 15 Assumption i (f ). • . ............... 119 16 Assumption 5(f ). .............. ......... 122 17 Assumption 8(f)................ 124 18 Assumption 13(f ) . ................. 127 19 Assumption 14(f ) . ........... 133 20 Assumption 4(c).................................... 141 21 Assumption 7(C).......... 145 22 Assumption 8(c). ........ ................. 149 23 Assumption 9(f).................. 156 24 Assumption 10(f ) .................. 159 25 Assumption 11(f) . .............................. 162 26 Assumption 12(f )........................... ..... 164 27 Assumption 9(c)................ 169 28 Assumption 10(c)................. .......... 175 29 Assumption 11(C) .. ....................... 180 30 Assumption 19( c ) .......... I85 31 Assumption 4(f). ....... .......... ...... 198 32 Assumption 1 6 ( C ) .............. 200 33 Assumption 17(C) .......... ............ 204 34 Assumption 18(C) . ......................... 210 35 Assumption 25 (c) ...... ...................... 216 36 Assmption'i^rr / "........... ., , „.. ............ 230 37 Assumption 16(f ) .......... ............ 233 38 Assumption 18(f) . .................. ....... 238 39 Assumption 1 9 ( F ) .................. 241 40 Assumption 1 2 (c) ............. ......... 247 viii Table Page 41 Assumption 13 ( c ) .............. 249 42 Assumption l^ ( c ) .......... 252 43 Assumption 15(C) .. ................ 258 44 Assumption 20(c) ................. 264 45 Assumption 21(C) ............ ........... 268 46 Assumption 22(C) .. ............................. 274 4? Assumption 2 .3( c ) .............. 285 48 Assumption 24 ( C ) ................................... 294 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Model for Understanding Style 3^ x CHAPTER ONE THE COMMUNICATIVE DIMENSION OF A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN Introduction Every four years a group of individuals called Presidential candidates compete for votes among the citizens of the United States. This process includes much fanfare, publicity and discussion, and culminates when the electorate chooses one person to become President of the United States. Many people (citizens, journalists, pollsters, scholars) focus their attention on the campaign as well as the ensuing election results and study them from a variety of perspectives. For instance, political scientists examine voting patterns and voter turnout; journalists write frequent stories documenting the candidates’ actions; survey researchers identify the composition of the electorate. Most of these endeavors examine events which occur during the campaign or attitudes of the electorate but not the relationship between the two. Within the context of particular campaign events, the candidates and voters discuss issues, ideas, and policies; this process provides a forum in which the electorate can form attitudes about the candidates and the candidates can adjust to the electorate. When talking with various groups of people, the 1 2 candidates not only acquire