Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2003 The dual ap ths of a political movement: convergence and divergence in contemporary conservative public address Lyman Davis Hunt Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Recommended Citation Hunt, Lyman Davis, "The dual ap ths of a political movement: convergence and divergence in contemporary conservative public address" (2003). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 434. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/434 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. THE DUAL PATHS OF A POLITICAL MOVEMENT: CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE IN CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATIVE PUBLIC ADDRESS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Communication Studies by Lyman Davis Hunt B.A., The Pennsylvania State University, 1989 M.A., Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1994 December, 2003 For Emily and Virginia ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I wish to thank Andy King for his wonderful direction, guidance, and friendship. I also would be remiss without thanking the members of my examination committee, Michael Bowman, Jim Honeycutt, Hugh Buckingham, and Mary Sirridge for their patience and helpful commentary. Their input will surely help this work grow into a more mature statement. Finally, I wish to thank Mary Frances HopKins, Harold Mixon, Owen Peterson, and Ken Zagacki, former Speech Communication faculty members who have moved on yet still exert an influence over my academic direction. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................... iii ABSTRACT..................................................................v CHAPTER 1 CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE ........... 1 2 HOMOLOGY IN THE TRANSCENDENCE OF CONSERVATIVE RHETORIC . 28 3 A HISTORY OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CONSERVATISM .......... 45 4 THE DUAL PATHS OF CONSERVATISM ................................ 97 5 THE IMPERATIVE FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION..................... 157 REFERENCES .............................................................183 VITA .....................................................................190 iv ABSTRACT This study examines the rhetorical choices made in public addresses by members of the contemporary conservative movement in the United States during the 1990s. The contemporary conservative movement in this instance is defined as a post World War II phenomenon. Specifically, it is argued that the popular notion of a unified conservative ascendence in America is but an illusion. Rather, two distinct tribes of conservatives, the economic and the traditional conservative, participate in a rhetorical homology that serves to hide significant ontological differences beneath the dialectical God terms freedom and order. Additionally, the charismatic nature of the term freedom authorizes allegiance to several abstract policy positions for differing reasons. It is only when the abstract is offered as concrete policy proposal that each wing of the movement is confronted with the gap between their core beliefs and those held by their ally. Because of the transcendence achieved in their discourse, conservatives are able to continually win election while experiencing policy defeat. Several implications for the future of conservatism in particular and political movements in general are asserted in the conclusion. v CHAPTER 1 CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Our vision of the good society and of the American political tradition at its best has been pre-empted by considerations of policy or the ephemera of “management style.” In this calculus the conservative cause becomes synonymous with tepid compromise rationalized in public by servants of the President who have no history or personal principle in common with the tradition we once defended. M.E. Bradford Since at least 1980, the American conservative movement has spoken of revolution – an ascendence of their fundamental beliefs that stood ready to usurp the liberal order that dominated mid-twentieth century America. Still, 20 years into the revolution the movement’s ascendence is marked more by stops and starts, fits of victory followed by defeat or worse yet, in the mind of the hardcore leaders, a coopted inertia. But how could this be? Did we not watch three consecutive republican landslides in presidential elections during the 1980s? Did we not see a shocking shift in the balance of legislative power in November of 1994? Did we not in 2000 observe yet a new Republican president assume the reigns of power advocating a largely doctrinaire conservative ideology? While all are true, there still is an air of fecklessness surrounding the movement – a record of inachievement in policy implementation. The present study seeks answers to the apparent failure of the Republican/conservative revolution. The “revolution”has produced strategic alliances and electoral victories but has not brought about the profound changes envisaged by its founding members. My thesis is that a unified conservative movement has not emerged and thus the movement cannot speak with a single unified voice and cannot express a clear conservative agenda. This dissertation will 1 describe the two major voices within the movement and the ways in which their conflicting “rhetorics” have shaped the fortunes of conservatism in the present era. I will use a combination of sociological and rhetorical theory to examine the way in which a divided political movement struggles to manage identity and effectiveness. Through the synthesis of these methods, a picture will emerge of a movement, not homogeneous, but rather encompassing two of five distinct ways of life posited by Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky (1990) – ways of life that conflict with one another while simultaneously needing one another. Using the strategy of rhetorical homology, these “wings” of the movement have appeared outwardly homogeneous and have presented a unified political front despite fundamental rhetorical differences. Following Simons’ (1970) ideas about persuasion and social movements, scholars began to understand how common symbols may mask conflict during the creation of social movements. This study will detail the pragmatic rhetorical choices made by movement conservatives that serve to publically sublimate their very real differences, thus creating the illusion of a monolithic conservative movement. Kenneth Burke reminds us that on a certain level of abstraction disagreements can be transcended and identification achieved. I argue that these practices forged election victories that were followed by policy implementation failures when the two major conservative factions descended to concrete details. This study is not concerned with the relative worth of conservative ideals. Nor does it bother itself with the quality of the strategies employed by movement conservatives when faced with implementing conservative policy. Simply, I intend to demonstrate the existence of two of 2 the four ways of life within the movement and how language serves to both hide and highlight, but mainly hide, the differences among them. Toward that end, I will in this opening chapter first, review contemporary literature that posits a unified conservative movement, Second, I will examine the cultural theory that posits five ways of life. Third, I will survey rhetorical and public address theory surrounding the use of language and why words matter. Fourth, I will outline the progression of the study and why rhetorical homology advances the study of public address in political movements. Finally, I will provide preliminary grounding for this work. A Conservative Movement? That the presence of a unified conservative movement has been largely accepted can be quickly gleaned from a look at works rooted both within and without the movement and in academic as well as lay circles. From the early post-war days of the contemporary movement writers and commentators, with scant exception, have spoken axiomatically of “the conservative movement” as a monolith that sustains but small disagreements within its ranks. For example, academic writers who count themselves as conservatives regularly speak of the movement in catholic terms. Russell Kirk’s (1953) The Conservative Mind assumes a coherent intellectual grounding for conservative thought and argues its centrality for contemporary times. Kirk includes those with more economic leanings in the conservative fold due to their devotion to private property rights, a key conservative belief. The influence of Kirk’s work is immeasurable and has often been cited as the core work in the conservative canon1. 1See Charen (1996), Edwards (1995, 1999), Ericson (1994), Guroian (1994), Hardisty (1999), Hodgson (1996), Nash (1976, 1994), Niemeyer (1994), Regnery (1996), Rusher (1975, 1993, 1998), and Schoenwald (2001) for a partial survey in the academic press of this thought. 3 Following Kirk’s lead,