Naming What Bothers Us: Measuring Moral Rhetoric in the 2016 Presidential Debates by Skyler James Meeks A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English, Rhetoric and Composition Boise State University May 2017 © 2017 Skyler James Meeks ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS of the thesis submitted by Skyler James Meeks Thesis Title: Naming What Bothers Us: Measuring Moral Rhetoric in the 2016 Presidential Debates Date of Final Oral Examination: 27 March 2017 The following individuals read and discussed the thesis submitted by student Skyler James Meeks, and they evaluated his presentation and response to questions during the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral examination. Kelly Myers, Ph.D. Chair, Supervisory Committee Bruce Ballenger, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee Clyde Moneyhun, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee The final reading approval of the thesis was granted by Kelly A. Myers, Ph.D., Chair of the Supervisory Committee. The thesis was approved by the Graduate College. DEDICATION To Annie, for helping me find my words. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I know it is impossible to express my gratitude to everyone who encouraged and aided me throughout this project, but I still want to try. First, to my family, who gave me the time and space to write. An extra measure of gratitude to my wife Annie, who challenged and championed my ideas at every turn. I could not ask for a better companion. This project is yours as much as it is mine. To Ali, Emery, Madison, and Nicole, who endured many months of my endless conversations about morality. You have been a second family to me. We have navigated through this program with excitement, anxiety, exhaustion, celebration, and I wouldn’t trade a single minute of it. To Melissa Keith, who sent Stephen Pinker’s article my way and opened the Pandora’s box that eventually became this project. Your enthusiasm for my work was relentless, and I cannot tell you how many times your encouragement pushed me through adversity. Thank you for inspiring me to tackle big, difficult, important questions. To Dr. Bruce Ballenger and Dr. Clyde Moneyhun, whose office doors were always open. Together you taught me the power of a curiosity, collaboration, and a lot of revision. Thank you for welcoming me into the discipline so wholeheartedly. And finally, to Dr. Kelly Myers, who saw this research in its infancy and every step thereafter. Thank you for investing immeasurable amounts of time, energy, and emotion into me and my ideas. If I become even a fraction of the mentor and friend you have been to me, then I will have lived a very good life. v ABSTRACT For centuries, Aristotle’s ethos has been a crucial component of persuasive rhetoric, with flagrant violations of character extinguishing the credibility of speakers and rendering their messages ineffective. However, the 2016 US presidential election challenged the rhetorical value of good character and left voters unable to articulate feelings about perceived moral transgressions. In some ways, this inability to express what bothered many is tied to the various constraints of the first-year writing classroom, where instructors often oversimplify definitions of ethos in a way that removes a facet known as aretê—a concept defined as moral virtue and one especially beneficial for navigating morally complex and controversial conversations. This study argues for a revival of aretê in our classrooms as a way of helping students engage in and explore their own questions of morality, character, and ethos. Utilizing revised conceptions of ethos and aretê that incorporate modern notions of moral virtue, this study analyzed transcripts of the three presidential debates to quantify how and when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump employed morally loaded language. The results of the lexical analysis surfaced a reduced moral vocabulary, which illustrates the need for a more nuanced understanding of ethos and a larger aretiac lexicon in our classroom. What this research advocates for is not that we anchor every iteration of ethos in moral virtue, but rather that alternative conceptions are invited into the classroom as a way of helping students enact new identities and participate in new spheres. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: ETHOS, ARETÊ, AND MORALITY .........................................................15 Exigence of the Crisis ............................................................................................15 Revitalizing Ethos ..................................................................................................19 Contemporary Conversations Surrounding Character ...............................22 Rethinking Aretê ....................................................................................................24 Aretê and Agôn ...........................................................................................25 Rhetorical Aretê .........................................................................................27 Incorporating Morality ...........................................................................................28 The Moral Foundation Theory ...................................................................30 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .........................................................35 Materials and Artifacts ...........................................................................................38 2016 Debate Formats .................................................................................40 Tools ......................................................................................................................43 Moral Foundations Dictionary ...................................................................43 vii Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count ...........................................................44 Procedure ...............................................................................................................45 Quantitative Analysis Overview ................................................................45 General Results ......................................................................................................48 Moral Concentration Versus Moral Volume .............................................49 Peak Moral Loading ...................................................................................53 Specific Versus General Morality ..............................................................54 Classroom Implementation ....................................................................................60 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION .............................................................................................62 Establishing Candidates’ Individual Aretê.............................................................64 Attacking an Opponent’s Aretê ..............................................................................69 The Stakes of Morality...........................................................................................71 Our Disappearing Morality ....................................................................................74 A Sanctity Void..........................................................................................74 Moral-Immoral Binary ...............................................................................75 An Invitation, Not a Solution .................................................................................76 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................89 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................94 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................97 APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................99 APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................101 APPENDIX F...................................................................................................................103 viii APPENDIX G ..................................................................................................................105 APPENDIX H ..................................................................................................................108 APPENDIX I ...................................................................................................................111 APPENDIX J ...................................................................................................................113