Thornton.Pdf

THE RHETORICAL STRATEGIES OF LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON PROMOTING EDUCATION By JAMIE THORNTON Bachelor of Arts, 1970 University of Texas Austin, Texas Master of Education, 1998 Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of AddRan College of Humanities and Social Sciences Texas Christian University In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 2007 Copyright by Jamie Thornton 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Ann George, Dan Williams, and Steven Sherwood for giving generously of their time and expertise in helping me consider and revise the rhetorical strategies and speech inquisition used in this dissertation. Their feedback proved to be invaluable throughout the entire dissertation- writing process. I would also like to thank the Honorable Jim Wright, Former Speaker of the House of Representatives who provided me with insights into Lyndon Johnson that only a friend and colleague of Johnson’s would be able to contribute. I also thank my parents, Carol and Bob Thornton who were constant supporters of my endeavor to successfully complete this quest. Both of my parents are former graduates of Texas Christian University. I will happily add my face to other graduates of TCU who stand beside the statue of Addison and Randolph that my mom, Carol, sculpted and donated to TCU. Both of my parents offered their unwavering belief in my abilities, as well as their love, and patience. Most of all, I wish to thank my committee chair, Dr. Richard Leo Enos. From the beginning of my doctoral studies, the love that Dr. Enos has of rhetoric—classical and contemporary—has been both inspiring and infectious. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iv INTRODUCTION. 1 CHAPTER ONE . 43 Appendix A: Statement by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson to the Senate: August 7, 1957 . 83 CHAPTER TWO. 88 Appendix B: Remarks of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson at Gettysburg, PA: May 30, 1963 . 121 CHAPTER THREE. 124 Appendix C: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress: November 27, 1963. 166 CHAPTER FOUR. 171 Appendix D: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Remarks at the University of Michigan: May 22, 1964. 211 CHAPTER FIVE . 216 Appendix E: Remarks In Johnson City, Texas, Upon Signing the Elementary and Secondary Education Bill: April 11, 1965. 251 Appendix F: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Commencement Address at Howard University, “To Fulfill These Rights”: June 4, 1965. 255 CHAPTER SIX . 263 Appendix G: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union: January 14, 1969. 288 CHAPTER SEVEN. 297 WORKS CITED . 301 iii 1 INTRODUCTION Rhetorical Strategies Used by Lyndon Johnson to Promote Education: From Congressman to President The formal study of rhetoric began sometime in the sixth century B.C.E. in ancient Greece (Campbell xvii) when it was considered as “a necessary adjunct to receiving a quality education” (“Education, History of”). The next step in rhetoric’s trajectory came as it moved from being an oral discipline to a written one because “writing simply re-presents spoken language in visible form” (Saussure qtd. in Ong 17). Plato’s writings clarified that the major concern of the rulers (Republic passim) was education. As the noted rhetorical scholar Eric Havelock points out, the link between rhetoric and education became solidified (13); however, just as many have done, Havelock does not state the way in which the “link” between these two disciplines has been continued over the centuries. Plato had certain ideas relating to educating specific people: he believed rhetoric was for the educated and education was specifically only for the guardians (or upper classes) in a democracy (Barker 31). The educated aristocracy would then be responsible for administering the Greek ideals relating to maintaining a democratic state to the rest of the inhabitants. Plato’s student, Aristotle, alternatively believed that all citizens could—and should—be educated to maintain democracy1 (Barker 31). That is, he believed that rhetoric was an integral part of receiving an education. These two men epitomize two disparate points of view in which education supports a republic. Centuries have passed and the debate regarding education (and rhetoric’s place in education) has not waned. Most people realize that education is necessary in a democracy; 1 The Greek word demos means “masses” and “began in Greece in the fifth century B.C.” (Kennedy vii). 2 however, not everyone realizes the need for providing a “quality” public education—which includes offering rhetoric. This dissertation shows, through the way in which Lyndon Johnson uses his rhetorical abilities, that not only what is important—education—but who must receive education in a democracy in order for the democratic way of life to be maintained. That is, the “what” is education and the “who” encompasses all of the citizens in a democracy, not just a chosen few. The Rhetorical Situation Aristotle initially gave a definition of rhetoric in the fourth century B.C.E. as meaning not only a “mode of persuasion,” but also “is the faculty of discovering in the particular case what are the available means of persuasion” (1355b). to any of the more involved definitions of the term in use today,2 we can appreciate the power rhetoric exerts over its listeners. However, we know that there is more than just a need to study the rhetorical act—such as a speech, a visual image, or a sound bite. By studying the entire make-up of an event, we can look at many aspects that impose themselves onto the speech and thereby more clearly understand why something was said versus what was meant in the moment. Lloyd F. Bitzer argues that one needs to consider at least three ways to perceive an event when viewing an entire rhetorical situation (“The Rhetorical Situation” 1-14). First, there must be an "exigence," which he defines as "an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be" (Bitzer, “Rhetorical Situation” 5-6). Significantly, discourse must be able to modify the exigence under discussion. For instance, Bitzer gives specifics relating to what discourse 2 “Rhetoric is the study of effective speaking and writing, the art of persuasion, and many other things” (Burton “What is Rhetoric”). 3 cannot modify (and is therefore not related to what he speaks about) when he writes, "Death, winter, and some natural disasters, for instance—are exigencies to be sure, but they are not rhetorical" (6). The second constituent of Bitzer's rhetorical situation is "audience," which he defines as those individuals affected by the exigence and as those persons—real or imagined by the speaker—"who are capable of being influenced by discourse and being mediators of change" (8). "Constraints” is the final constituent of Bitzer's rhetorical situation. These inhibitors are those elements that have the power potentially to "constrain [the] decision and action needed to modify exigence. Standard sources of constraint include beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives, and the like. ."(8).3 3 Bitzer received critiques from several rhetoricians who questioned the constraints he offered. Primary among rhetoricians are two well-known scholars, Richard Vatz and Scott Consigny. Vatz argues with the homogeneity of a speech event, and instead argues for autonomy which leads to a form of creation by the rhetor. That is, what Bitzer sees as an externally existing phenomenon—situation—is, rather, an indication of the perspective of the perceiver. In short, writes Vatz, "No situation can have a nature independent of the perception of its interpreter or independent of the rhetoric with which he chooses to characterize it" (154). The implications of this for Vatz are two-fold: "rhetoric" and "situations" are not discreet, and situations are "rhetorical" in and of themselves (159). Alternatively, Scott Consigny maintains that a rhetorical event does not arise autonomously. Rather, the rhetorical “act” arises from what is transpiring around it. Consigny continues by saying that in Bitzer's formulation, the rhetor is no different than the "expert or scientist who can solve specific problems by using well-formulated methods or procedures." This is simply not the role of a rhetor; rather, Consigny maintains that "the rhetor's task is . to be able to ask good questions and formulate or discover relevant problems in an indeterminate situation" (177). He continues by stating that rhetors are frequently placed in situations beyond their control or situations in which they must quickly alter their responses based on the constraints of the situation. If rhetors "fail. to take these constraints into account, spinning issues from (their) imagination, (they) may never get in touch with events or (their) audience, and may rightly be dismissed as ineffective and irrelevant" (179). As these two critiques have shown, even though aspects of Bitzer’s rhetorical situation have been questioned, his overall presentation of the rhetorical situation remains a major way of interrogating the overall rhetorical event—or speech. 4 We can see how historical events lead up to the public speech a person delivers. The words used to persuade become more transparent and allow us—as analyzers—the ability to unite more aspects together in order to more clearly be able to understand. This inquiry into the means by which a result occurred (rather than focusing on results the event brought about) solidifies the realization that not only is the event unique but also the rhetoric leading up to the creation of the result—or event—is equally distinctive. The words reflect the attitudes and the time period in which the speaker employs them.

Load more