Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Dissertations Department of Communication 8-7-2018 The Filibuster As Populist Transcendence: The Deliberative, Dramatic, And Spectacular Forms Of Talking A Bill To Death Evan Layne Johnson Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss Recommended Citation Johnson, Evan Layne, "The Filibuster As Populist Transcendence: The Deliberative, Dramatic, And Spectacular Forms Of Talking A Bill To Death." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2018. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss/90 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]. THE FILIBUSTER AS POPULIST TRANSCENDENCE: THE DELIBERATIVE, DRAMATIC, AND SPECTACULAR FORMS OF TALKING A BILL TO DEATH by EVAN JOHNSON Under the Direction of James Darsey, PhD ABSTRACT This dissertation aims to map the evolutionary history of the talking filibuster as a rhetorical form. Since Senators can forego a talking filibuster and obstruct a bill with a secret hold, filibustering is a strategic rhetorical choice. In addition to the textuality of filibustering, then, what performative and symbolic rhetorical work is done by the filibuster that secret holds do not do? I argue that the filibuster is a form of populist transcendence, an innovative rhetorical technique for transcending senatorial elitism. Chapter two studies Robert La Follette and his era: the fin de siècle. This populist agrarian used lengthy deliberation and filibustering as “temporal republicanism” to slow legislative proceedings during the social acceleration of the industrial age. In response to La Follette’s deliberative filibusters, Senate rules were changed to stymie him. With deliberation restricted, filibustering Senators had to create and maintain a scene to hold the floor. Chapters three and four study Huey Long and "Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the personae they adopted, and the suffering they underwent to create their dramatic filibusters. However, Frank Capra’s film over-dramatized the visuals and motorized the pacing of the filibuster to create a spectacular caricature of the form for mass entertainment. Finally, in our social-media age, the filibuster has taken on a hybrid form: synthesizing spectacular drama with deliberation. Chapter five studies Wendy Davis and her ability to interact with citizens through social media. The co-creation of the filibuster by senators and citizens produced identification, empathy, deliberation, and dramatic political action when citizens went to the Texas capitol and shouted from the gallery to kill the bill. Using Jacques Rancière, I find that this new form of filibustering blurs the line between actors and audience and can emancipate spectators. Thus, social media is re-enlivening both the dramatic and deliberative aspects of filibustering. Overall, the filibuster began as a deliberative form, became a dramatic form, and now within the social media spectacle, deliberation and drama are synthesizing. INDEX WORDS: Filibustering, Populism, Deliberation, Dramatism, Spectacle, Emancipation THE FILIBUSTER AS POPULIST TRANSCENDENCE: THE DELIBERATIVE, DRAMATIC, AND SPECTACULAR FORMS OF TALKING A BILL TO DEATH by EVAN JOHNSON 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 2018 Copyright by Evan Layne Johnson 2018 THE FILIBUSTER AS POPULIST TRANSCENDENCE: THE DELIBERATIVE, DRAMATIC, AND SPECTACULAR FORMS OF TALKING A BILL TO DEATH by EVAN JOHNSON Committee Chair: James Darsey Committee: Elizabeth Burmester Tim Barouch Carl Burgchardt Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University August 2018 iv DEDICATION To my inspiring grandparents Johnson. Harvey and Marlys (Marlie) passed away while I completed my doctorate. Their great loves were nature, music, poetry, family, and each other. This process would not have been possible without MaLeah’s incomparable love and support. To my nuclear and extended family: I thank my parents for their love of literature, history, and the Divine, and for teaching me that the good life is the simple life. To my father, who read drafts and is the Iron Horse—teaching in same school district for 37 years and working as the union representative for over a decade. To my mother, who never stopped mailing cards and letters—I would drive cross-country to be at your holiday table. To my sister, who kept calling. To my brother, who kept writing poetry. To great aunt Shirley, who never stopped praying. To aunt Lisa, who never stopped networking. To aunt Nance, who still gives adult nephews a nice bill in their birthday card. To my in-laws, who let me move cross-country with their daughter—twice. To everyone back home who has tried to make sure I don’t lose my rustic common sense with all this book learnin’. To our local “family” at the Atlanta Vineyard Church. To my students and their verve. To all who encouraged me personally and professionally on this journey. And finally, to my earlier self, the late bloomer who couldn’t read until age seven, and once vowed “I’ll never learn to read!” We showed him. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first and grandest “thank you” must go to my advisor, James Darsey, who improved this project at each stage. Not only did your questions, feedback, and line edits sharpen my thinking, but in your three courses, in emails, at our lunches, and at the bar after class occasionally, you were always thoughtful, inquisitive, humorous, and challenging yet gracious. One comment on my paper proposal in my first semester at GSU stands out: after saying that nearly everything about it was unclear (mystery, thesis, significance), you highlighted one sentence as brilliant. Coming from you, whom random colleagues at every conference say is “the best writer in the field,” that comment kept me going. Now that paper proposal is a dissertation. My committee deserves much thanks. Elizabeth Burmester’s seminars on Roman, Medieval and Renaissance rhetoric inspired my thinking on this project. Thanks to the GSU English Dept writ large for maintaining a robust four-course sequence on the Rhetorical Tradition. Although Nathan Atkinson could not complete the journey, he survived my Comps and Prospectus committees, and the Wendy Davis chapter originated in his Critical Theory course. To Professor Burgchardt, I commend your early scholarship on Robert La Follette and your recent work on film. I am also grateful for your Rhetorical Criticism textbook; as an unmoored MA student at Syracuse, it was a port in the storm. Thanks to Tim Barouch for eagerly joining a short committee. Your kindness and work ethic are admirable. Thank you to all the other professors at GSU who strengthened my writing—especially Mary Stuckey and Michael (M. Lane) Bruner. Thanks to the GSU Comm Dept staff. Thanks, Hersheda Patel, for formatting help. Finally, thanks to all the librarians and baristas in the locations where I wrote this opus, especially GSU’s Troy Moore and Law Libraries, the Chamblee Public Library, and Zen Tea. Yours is the unseen labor. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ V LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... X 1 THE FILIBUSTER: AN ADAPTABLE, RESILIANT RHETORICAL FORM........ 1 1.1 Defining the Filibuster ................................................................................................. 5 1.1.1 From Tactic of Obstruction to Rhetorical Form, Characteristics and Themes ... 10 1.2 Filibuster Literature: Thematic Gaps Concerning Deliberation & Spectacle ..... 13 1.3 Populism & Filibustering: The Simultaneous Rise ................................................. 19 1.3.1 Transcendence:....................................................................................................... 22 1.4 Plan of Study: ............................................................................................................. 23 2 THE DELIBERATIVE FORM OF FILIBUSTERING: ROBERT LA FOLLETTE AND TRANSCENDENCE THROUGH LENGTHY TALKING .............................. 29 2.1 Deliberation, Speed, Values, & Change During the Fin de Siècle ......................... 33 2.1.1 18th-Century: The Temporal Republicanism of the Founders ............................. 36 2.1.2 19th-Century: Pioneer Praxis & Spacious Rhetoric .............................................. 37 2.1.3 20th-Century: Standard Time, Industrial Efficiency, and Motorized Legislation 38 2.2 La Follette: Two Tactics, Agrarian Deliberation, & the Filibuster ....................... 43 2.3 Analysis of La Follette’s 1908 Filibuster .................................................................. 46 2.3.1 1st Dialogue between La Follette and Aldrich (CR—7161-62): ........................... 47 2.3.2 2nd Dialogue between La Follette and Aldrich (CR-7162-4): ............................... 50 2.3.3 3rd Dialogue: La Follette & Aldrich, Previous Day’s RECORD (CR—7164-5): 53 2.3.4 4th Dialogue: La Follette