An Analysis of Communicative Strategies Employed by the President of the United States in Times of Domestic and International C
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
An analysis of communicative strategies employed by the President of the United States in times of domestic and international crisis between 1933 and 2001; with particular focus on literary and linguistic devices used in presidential rhetoric. Aidan O’Connor - Joint Honours American Studies & English Q43128 (40 Credit Dissertation) Dissertation Tutor: Professor Thomas Allcock School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies Abstract. This study examines the evolution of crisis rhetoric employed by the President of United States between 1933 and 2001. Transcripts of public speech from former Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush are subjected to literary and linguistic analysis. Combined with intellectual and contextual references, this information determines how and why crisis rhetoric has evolved across the Great Depression, the Empire of Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, violent domestic civil rights demonstrations and al-Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorist attacks. The first chapter scrutinises Roosevelt’s ‘Fireside Chat’ responses to the nation’s economic depression and Empire of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The second chapter examines Johnson’s influence on the campaign for civil rights that took place predominantly during the 1960s, specifically his 1965 “The America Promise” speech. The third chapter inspects Bush’s televised responses to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Literary and linguistic devices in these speech transcripts, including narrative voice, figurative language and cultural allusions, help understand the distinct forms of each President’s crisis rhetoric. Frequent comparisons between the oratory styles of Roosevelt, Johnson and Bush suggest crisis rhetoric’s basic function has changed. Roosevelt favoured accurate information, Johnson adopted a more persuasive model of speech and Bush chose to manipulate the national audience. This is evidenced by a shift from informative, candid crisis rhetoric to an intimate and dramatic alternative. To determine the motivations behind this shift in rhetorical style, contemporary public reactions and existing academic criticism of these speeches have also been accommodated in this study. From this research, the growth of mass media, the population’s reduced faith in federal government and the revocation of the intellectual’s political influence are all considered as potential causes. 13,592 words (including footnotes) Contents Page No. Introduction 1 I - Franklin D. Roosevelt: Economic depression, international 5 conflict and direct interaction. II - Lyndon B. Johnson: Civil rights, social reform and debate 15 rhetoric. III - George W. Bush: ‘The War on Terror,’ globalisation and 30 emotive speech. Conclusion 51 Bibliography 57 1 Introduction. As the leader of a democracy, the President of the United States must maintain an effective relationship with the American citizens he represents. Rhetorical strategies in public speech are a significant part of this duty, conveying and promoting political ideologies or government agendas. Academic professor Jeffrey Tulis cited this association, where “the words [of public speech]…are regarded as mere ‘reflections’ of these doctrines.”1 During periods of threat to national security, domestic or international, between 1933 and 2001, the U.S. President’s communicative strategies, his means of interacting with the national population, have become more pro-active and ‘intimately coercive’. Public addresses have shifted from a formal and staid rhetoric to a more personal, colloquial and figurative alternative. The function of this rhetoric has also evolved from accurate information, to rational persuasion and dramatic embellishment. Throughout this hermeneutic study of public speech, ‘rhetoric’ relates to the linguistic and literary devices used in the President’s communication with the national population. ‘Ideology’ refers to system of ideals that directs social, economic or political policy. Scholars Jeremiah Olson, Yu Ouyang, John Poe and Richard Waterman labelled rhetoric’s significance in the President’s redirection of public policy and opinion as one of “three principal powers…[with] the formal constitutional and statutory powers defined in the Constitution and subsequent legislation [and] the political 1 Jeffrey Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987): p.13 2 power of being head of his party…”2 To understand the motivations behind rhetorical selection and why the President’s crisis rhetoric has evolved into a more intimate and dramatic resource, this study conducts a linguistic analysis of three different Presidents’ crisis rhetoric. Linguistic analysis identifies and describes each speech’s semantic, phonological and grammatical structures, linking them to the period’s contemporary context. This partially entails the political agendas of each President, which have affected the form and content of their communicative strategies’. Studying Presidential rhetoric during periods of threat to national safety reveals the ideologies the President and American citizens regard highest once their sense of security has been compromised. This project correlates these ideologies with Franklin D. Roosevelt; Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush’s use of rhetorical strategies in public speech, 3 examining how enduring ideologies are represented differently, through rhetoric, over time. Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression and attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, Johnson’s intervention in the domestic campaign for civil rights in the 1960s and Bush’s reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 reveal the evolution of the President’s crisis rhetoric between 1933 and 2001. This window of time encapsulates three distinct periods of threat to national security. This project’s focus on the Presidency disregards the need to analyse party 2 Jeremiah Olson, Yu Ouyang, John Poe, Austin Trantham and Richard W. Waterman, “The Teleprompter Presidency: Comparing Obama's Campaign and Governing Rhetoric,” Social Science Quarterly, 93.5, (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012): p.1406 3 For the purposes of this dissertation, the titles ‘President Bush’ and ‘Bush’ refer to George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States of America. 3 affiliation in detail. The President communicates with a national audience, regardless of which political party he comes from. Similarly, the role of the speechwriter will not be scrutinised in this study either. Whilst professional writers help create public speech, the President has the final verdict on its shape, content and use of rhetorical devices. Existing critical interpretations of U.S. presidential rhetoric provide two dominant schools of thought on the consistency of the U.S. President’s rhetorical style in public address over the twentieth-century. Certain scholars argue there has been no significant change in the style of the Presidents’ rhetoric or the values it perpetuates. Karen Hoffman stressed a “significant continuity” amongst U.S. President’s public addresses, refusing to acknowledge any discrepancy in presidential rhetoric.4 Craig and Kathy Smith shared this opinion of “an unusually concordant value system”.5 Barbara Hinckley suggested the ‘old’ formal and ‘new’ intimate rhetorical models of the U.S. presidency bore a “striking similarity.”6 This study’s linguistic and contextual analysis of Roosevelt, Johnson and Bush’s crisis rhetoric argues against this collective opinion to suggest there was a development in rhetorical style. In the second mindset, academics argue the President’s communicative strategies have transformed over time. Scholars Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, Edward Yager and 4 Karen S. Hoffman, “The rhetorical vs. the popular presidency: Thomas Jefferson as a popular president,” Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, (Chicago, IL, April 2001.) 5 Craig A. Smith and Kathy B. Smith. “Presidential values and public priorities: Recurrent patterns in addresses to the nation, 1963-1984,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, p.15, (Washington D.C.: Center for Study of the Presidency and Congress, 1985): p.749 6 Barbara Hinckley, The Symbolic Presidency: How presidents portray themselves, (New York, NY: Routledge, 1990): p.133 4 Sandi Lahlou recognised this shift, citing colloquial terminology and abstract themes in modern public address: “from themes concerned with (1) institutions, to…(2) individuals, families, and children.”7 Olson suggested the modern President’s rhetoric had become “anti-intellectual…more abstract, relying on religious and idealistic references…more activist…inclusive and…conversational.”8 Tulis argued “popular or mass rhetoric has become the principle tool of presidential governance,”9 suggesting each President adapted their rhetoric according to his political ideologies and the national audience’s condition. Each claim partially contributes to my study’s thesis, which hypothesises a transition from candid, formal registers of language to a more intimate, emotive and dramatic lexicon in Presidential crisis rhetoric. This study distinguishes itself from the second collective outlook, however, by comparing close linguistic analysis of each President’s crisis rhetoric, whilst identifying the prevalent social forces that prompted their respective oratory styles. This provides further insight into the motivations behind each President’s selection of rhetoric. Gallup polls and intellectual responses from the time provide further indicators of synchronization or discord between