Azu Etd Mr20100203 Sip1 M.Pdf

The Use of Familial Terms Within Presidential Rhetoric from Truman to Obama Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Guest, Joanna Ruth Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 23/09/2021 22:54:22 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/146932 Guest, 2010 2 Familial Terms in Presidential Rhetoric Abstract: This thesis seeks to examine the rhetorical traditions of American presidents from Truman to Obama in order to track the usage of familial terms. Within this study, the words “family” and “children” were focused on throughout the forums of Inaugural, State of the Union, Primetime, and Farewell addresses to the nation. Through tracking the prevalence of these terms and the reasons for their usage throughout the collected addresses, it has become clear that incorporating familial terms into presidential rhetoric is a dominant strategy used to engage the nation and connect with American families. 3 The word “family” is both comprehensive and far-reaching. Families today are diverse in nature while significant in purpose. It is because of these qualities that many U.S. presidents highlight the efforts, importance and strengths of the American family in their rhetoric. Throughout presidential discourse, specifically in the ritually formalized State of the Union, Inaugural, and Farewell addresses, along with the more informal and time- specific Primetime addresses, families are highlighted as a strategic means in order to instil a connection between the seemingly isolated president and the ordinary people. In 1985, Reagan addressed the nation during a time of economic growth and peace. As his attention turned to pressing social and domestic issues, his discourse became filled with emotional sentiments and familial terms that resonated beyond the politics of Washington and migrated into the home. He commented on the essential nature of families, intertwining familism with the American framework: “New freedom in our lives has planted the rich seeds for future success: For an America of wisdom that honors the family, [knows] that as the family goes, so goes our civilization” (Reagan, State of the Union, 1985). Reagan was not alone in this sentiment, one that historically crosses party lines. Instead, highlighting the American family is perpetuated in past presidential speeches that make similar appeals to the importance of family. Truman highlighted the fundamental rights of families in his Inaugural Address of 1949 stating: “Only by helping the least fortunate of its members to help themselves can the human family achieve the decent, satisfying life that is the right of all people” (Truman, Inaugural Address, 1949). These pointed allusions to the family provide a basic connection between the president and the people that is critically important amidst the ebb and flow of an American presidency. The Importance of Family and Politics In his 1999 address as the President of the National Council on Family Relations, William Doherty explains his view on the current situation of modern day families: We are increasingly a hyper-individualistic, consumer-oriented society that values family life as a political icon and a marketing target but not as a place for growing active, productive citizens. (p. 323) This is a hard statement for most Americans to understand and accept. The family is believed to be the most important institution for nurturing youth, but has the use of the Familial Terms in Presidential Rhetoric term “family” evolved so far from the original ideals of promoting a respectable, loving home into a strategic tool used to push agendas and engage (sometimes enrage) voters? Doherty (1999) boldly claims that the goals of instilling morals and values while nurturing the young on civility and love have consistently diminished. Whether or not the family has truly drifted from “a place for growing active, productive citizens” (p. 323) is up for debate, but there is no question that families have become an iconic, prized possession within politics (Doherty, 1999). Through the appeal of familial terms, politicians use families strategically and successfully to grab voter attention, swing the economy and collect the country into one unified electorate. The family has long been a privately valued institution. All individuals are part of a family whether that family is loving and supportive or estranged, abusive and neglectful. Individual experiences within these varying family structures help shape personalities and, ultimately, society as a whole. Images of the typical American family began dominating the Hollywood spotlight in the early 1950s (Skill & Robinson, 1994; Arnold & Weisberg, 1996). These “normal” and “wholesome” American families were classically depicted with a devoted, loving mother who tended the home, a hard-working father who disciplined and provided for the family, and two or more young children all living under the same roof (Wiseman, 2008). This “ideal” family no longer accurately reflects the diverse American collective, yet these images are still perpetuated 60 years later through the media, and more importantly but less noticeably, through politics (Creed, 2000; Gring-Pemble, 2003). According to Gring-Pemble (2003), legislation continues to govern the “ideal family” preventing most “real American families” from experiencing, for example, the policies of true welfare or paternal support reform (p. 475-476). While the government and many of its people vehemently protect the family as a “private” institution, there is no denying the influence that the public sphere and political world can have on the dynamic functioning of the family (Bogenschneider, 2000; Arnold & Weisberg, 1996). Bogenschneider (2000) discusses the shifting connotation of the word “family” and the familial structures encapsulated by this blanket term. She observes that the root of the debate among public policy officials lies within whether this private matter “implicitly” or “explicitly” connects to American politics (p. 1137). With the growing dichotomy between the United States two-party democratic system, oppositional forces rise to rigorously argue 5 Guest, 2010 over countless issues regarding the matter of family. Bogenschneider (2000) suggests that, for the most part, liberals tend to believe in explicit policy; she notes the legislation of liberal governments that seek “structural solutions” to provide help and support for families (p. 1151). Conservatives, on the other hand, feel the family should be protected as an intensely personal institution, and governments should only provide “individual solutions” that can be used, if needed, to motivate and help families (Bogenschneider, 2000, p. 1151). Yet the continuing debate between these two camps may be neglecting an important fact. Hart, Jarvis, Jennings & Smith-Howell (2005) note that, “our privacy is not sealed off” and “there has always been a ‘policing of families’… that superimpose[s] public expectations on our private lives” (p. 34). This policing occurs, for example, through abortion legislation or more advantageous tax-exemptions for two-parent families as opposed to single parent homes (Hart et al., 2005, p. 35-37). While the discourse and motives may have fluctuated in popularity over the last century, both parties understand the strategic ability recognizable familial terms such as “family” and “children” have in persuading the public and inducing action over policies. In 1862, Lincoln proclaimed in his State of the Union address that, “The United States is well adapted to be the home of one national family, and it is not well adapted for two or more.” Over 150 years ago, Lincoln utilized the rhetoric of family, captivating listeners and asking them to unite together as one common “family.” Today, politicians continue to discuss and unite the metaphorical “family of the United States.” We hear varying definitions from these notable figures on what families are, what they deserve, and what their values should be. It is clear, as Creed (2000) suggests, that the family has everyday “social consequence” (p. 330) and “economic significance” (p. 342). Families control the market to a large degree and politicians understand that by using appealing rhetoric to implement programs for a “successful” family life may ultimately lead to successful capitalism (Creed, 2000, p. 331). From discussions in 1862 on the “American family” to modern debates over “family values,” the importance of family and its rhetorical benefits creates a “powerful tool in political discourse” (Cloud, 1998, p. 389). Because of this ever-present rhetorical tactic it is important to understand the so-called “language of political ‘elites’” that Hart et al. (2005) studies in order to become educated as to what these strategic language choices “tell us 6 Familial Terms in Presidential Rhetoric about our lives and times” (p. 3). Without this understanding and examination, the discussion of what is best for the metaphorical “American family” may become a “fictionalized ideal” overlooking what is truly occurring (Creed, 2000, p. 345; Hart et al., 2005). Throughout the literature on families and politics, four themes are continuously explored in order to address the changing structure of American families

Load more