George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Dissertations Department of Communication 5-10-2017 Transnational Presidential Rhetoric and the Global Imaginary: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama Zoe Carney Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss Recommended Citation Carney, Zoe, "Transnational Presidential Rhetoric and the Global Imaginary: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2017. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss/80 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRANSNATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND THE GLOBAL IMAGINARY: GEORGE H.W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH, AND BARACK OBAMA by ZOË HESS CARNEY Under the Direction of Mary Stuckey, PhD ABSTRACT This dissertation analyzes moments in which presidents interact with transnational audiences, identifying and explaining their rhetorical strategies for developing a global imaginary. Specifically, I first consider how George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev negotiate geo-political and spatial metaphors leading up to their joint press conference, symbolically ending the Cold War. Second, I discuss how Bill Clinton and George W. Bush universalize the trope of “democracy” in their speeches before the United Nations General Assembly. Third, I explain how Barack Obama figures transnational citizens and himself as a global leader in his transnational town hall meetings. Together, these case studies show the ways contemporary presidents call forth particular understandings of “the global” through speech. Politically, this study is significant because it broadens our understanding of the institution of the presidency from the framework of a national institution to that of a global one. Rhetorically, this study illuminates the relationship between presidential speech, transnational audiences, and the rhetorical imaginary of the global sphere. INDEX WORDS: Presidential rhetoric, Globalization, Transnationalism, Democracy, Universals, Imaginary TRANSNATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND THE GLOBAL IMAGINARY: GEORGE H.W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH, AND BARACK OBAMA by ZOË HESS CARNEY A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2017 Copyright by Zoë Hess Carney 2017 TRANSNATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND THE GLOBAL IMAGINARY: GEORGE H.W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH, AND BARACK OBAMA by ZOË HESS CARNEY Committee Chair: Mary Stuckey Committee: Nathan Atkinson Darrel Wanzer-Serrano Carol Winkler Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University May 2017 iv DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Kyle, who has supported me, encouraged me, and poured me coffee throughout my seven years of graduate school. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Amy Poehler once said that it is easier to be brave when you are not alone. For me, finishing my dissertation was an act of bravery. I would not have completed it without the embarrassment of riches I have in friends, family, colleagues, and mentors. To my advisor, Mary Stuckey, thank you for your sharp wit, your company, your quick responses, and your endless support. Thank you, along with my committee members, Nathan Atkinson, Darrel Wanzer-Serrano, and Carol Winkler, for making my work stronger and smarter. To my parents, thank you for raising me to think critically and to believe in myself. Without that foundation, it would be difficult to write anything, much less to write it well. To my husband, thank you for years of engaging my ideas until they became arguments. Thank you, mostly, for betting on me when I would not bet on myself. To my colleagues at Georgia State, I am grateful to have walked beside you through this process. Emily Kofoed, thank you for your friendship, wisdom, late-night writing dates, and yoga breaks. Sara Baugh, thank you for being my banana counterpart, always up for an adventure, commiseration, and the lending of a keen editing eye. Stephen Heidt, thank you for being an example to follow throughout graduate school. Evan Johnson, Christian Norman, Milene Ortega, and Phil Kostka, thank you for the rich discussions and debates over the years. Jennifer Mercieca, you have been a source of inspiration and guidance for the past decade. You make me a better scholar and citizen. Lauren Lemley, Katie Langford, and Elizabeth Thorpe, you have each shaped and challenged me in different ways. My life is richer and my mind sharper because of you. The friendship of Megan Irene Fitzmaurice, Elizabeth Gardner, Esther Liu, and Allison Prasch has been a gift, and I will always be thankful for the vi National Communication Association’s Doctoral Honors Seminar for bringing us together. Our online writing dates and your prayers helped carry me through this dissertation. Finally, some of the best advice I received in graduate school was to surround myself with people who do not care about my academic achievements or failures. So, to my community in Fort Worth, and to most of my family, thank you for keeping me grounded, often redirecting my gaze to that which is most important in life. This allowed me to write without a great fear of failure. Thank you all for making me brave. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... X 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Rhetorical Presidency ............................................................................... 6 1.2 Globalization and Democratization ............................................................... 14 1.3 Global Imaginary as Rhetorical Lens ........................................................... 21 1.4 Project Details ................................................................................................. 27 2 PRESIDENTS AND FOREIGN LEADERS: BUSH AND GORBACHEV END THE COLD WAR ....................................................................................................................... 33 2.1 Cold War Global Imaginary .......................................................................... 36 2.1.1 U.S. Liberty and Soviet Justice: Containing/Expanding Communism ..... 38 2.1.2 “New Thinking” Under Gorbachev ............................................................ 42 2.2 Setting: Malta .................................................................................................. 43 2.3 East and West as Controlling Metaphors ..................................................... 47 2.3.1 Leadership and Security .............................................................................. 52 2.3.2 Transnational and Global Identity .............................................................. 64 2.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 71 3 PRESIDENTS AND THE UNITED NATIONS: CLINTON AND BUSH UNIVERSALIZE “DEMOCRACY” ........................................................................................ 74 viii 3.1 Role of U.S. Presidents and International Organizations ........................... 80 3.2 United Nation’s Legitimacy and the Universal Audience ........................... 84 3.2.1 The President, The U.N., and the Universal Audience .............................. 89 3.3 Clinton’s (Market) Democratic Enlargement .............................................. 91 3.3.1 Democracy as Global Market ...................................................................... 91 3.3.2 U.S. as Synecdoche of Universal Audience ................................................ 96 3.4 Bush: U.S. “Democracy” and Universal Human Rights ............................. 99 3.4.1 Consubstantiation through Founding Documents ................................... 100 3.4.2 “World Community” and “Strict Father” Metaphors .............................. 106 3.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 110 4 PRESIDENTS AND FOREIGN CITIZENS: OBAMA’S TRANSNATIONAL TOWN HALL MEETINGS ..................................................................................................... 113 4.1 Transnational Foreign Policy....................................................................... 118 4.1.1 American Exceptionalism .......................................................................... 120 4.2 Obama as Global Representative ................................................................ 122 4.2.1 Audience Response to Obama: Four Anecdotes ....................................... 122 4.2.2 Obama’s Rhetorical Strategies .................................................................. 127 4.2.2.1 Physical Presence .................................................................................... 128 4.2.2.2 Definition of a Situation .........................................................................