Bush the Conservative p. 2
Theoretical Framework
Once the problem of a working definition is out of the way, the next problem to present itself is how to investigate something that exists only as a mental construct. Ideology cannot be observed directly – which is one reason why it is so difficult to define. Its presence can only be inferred from the behavior of an individual. The type of behavior to be observed is the one most directly pertinent to the question – the attempts of political candidates (elites) to gain support from voters and constituent groups (masses). This necessarily leads to an examination of the rhetoric used by politicians, both as candidates on the campaign trail and as office holders.
But even this limitation is too large to be of use. Hart, et. al., (2005) go to some length in exploring how “political keywords” come to have greater import and power than others. The use of certain words in certain ways closes off discussion – a powerful means of gaining support. Richard Weaver (1953) called these words “God Words” when they carried a positive connotation and “Devil Terms” when they carried negative connotations. Certainly, these tend to fit the loose definition of ideology given above.
Yet Hart, et. al. (2005), follow the steps of Harold Lasswell (1966) in attempting to determine the import of political keywords by counting how many times they are used. It is now how often words are used that make them keywords, though – it is how they are used and the way in which people respond to them. In other words, it is the ideology of the rhetoric that this paper explores, not the fact that words are, in fact, used.
Go on to Page 3
Once the problem of a working definition is out of the way, the next problem to present itself is how to investigate something that exists only as a mental construct. Ideology cannot be observed directly – which is one reason why it is so difficult to define. Its presence can only be inferred from the behavior of an individual. The type of behavior to be observed is the one most directly pertinent to the question – the attempts of political candidates (elites) to gain support from voters and constituent groups (masses). This necessarily leads to an examination of the rhetoric used by politicians, both as candidates on the campaign trail and as office holders.
But even this limitation is too large to be of use. Hart, et. al., (2005) go to some length in exploring how “political keywords” come to have greater import and power than others. The use of certain words in certain ways closes off discussion – a powerful means of gaining support. Richard Weaver (1953) called these words “God Words” when they carried a positive connotation and “Devil Terms” when they carried negative connotations. Certainly, these tend to fit the loose definition of ideology given above.
Yet Hart, et. al. (2005), follow the steps of Harold Lasswell (1966) in attempting to determine the import of political keywords by counting how many times they are used. It is now how often words are used that make them keywords, though – it is how they are used and the way in which people respond to them. In other words, it is the ideology of the rhetoric that this paper explores, not the fact that words are, in fact, used.
Go on to Page 3
© 2004 by Xpatriated Texan
<< Home