Bush the Conservative p. 4
Scope and Methods
This paper utilizes this theoretical framework to conduct a rhetorical analysis of the speech patterns of George W. Bush during his attempts to gain support for or in defense of his tax-cut agenda. It theorizes that to address audiences with differing levels of ideological literacy, the rhetoric used will have to change. It thus examines his speech in two very different settings – first in the formal setting of Presidential addresses (such as State of the Union and Inaugural Addresses) and secondly in the more informal setting of the campaign trail or constituent meetings. If propaganda keywords are used in the way suggested above then it would be expected that they would be used more often on the campaign trail and in small, informal meetings and less likely to be used in formal addresses where the expected audience is other political elites. This would tend to indicate that propaganda keywords are used as ideological markers to bridge the gap between an elite speaker and a non-elite audience.
The method utilized is rather simple. Sample speeches are chosen for examination – five in formal settings and five in informal settings. Each speech is examined in light of the others in the category to determine what arguments or reasons are typically given for tax cuts. These arguments are then examined to determine if they are used as persuasion (individual, fact-based arguments) or propaganda (group, feeling-based arguments). Both types of arguments will then be examined for any ideological connection.
It should be noted here that “propaganda” is not used here as a negative term – although it may itself be a “Devil Term” in many instances. Rather it is simply used as a means of dividing personal arguments from group-based arguments. Propaganda can be used negatively, and has been throughout time. However, individual persuasion can be just as destructive when strategically used as such.
Go on to Page 5
This paper utilizes this theoretical framework to conduct a rhetorical analysis of the speech patterns of George W. Bush during his attempts to gain support for or in defense of his tax-cut agenda. It theorizes that to address audiences with differing levels of ideological literacy, the rhetoric used will have to change. It thus examines his speech in two very different settings – first in the formal setting of Presidential addresses (such as State of the Union and Inaugural Addresses) and secondly in the more informal setting of the campaign trail or constituent meetings. If propaganda keywords are used in the way suggested above then it would be expected that they would be used more often on the campaign trail and in small, informal meetings and less likely to be used in formal addresses where the expected audience is other political elites. This would tend to indicate that propaganda keywords are used as ideological markers to bridge the gap between an elite speaker and a non-elite audience.
The method utilized is rather simple. Sample speeches are chosen for examination – five in formal settings and five in informal settings. Each speech is examined in light of the others in the category to determine what arguments or reasons are typically given for tax cuts. These arguments are then examined to determine if they are used as persuasion (individual, fact-based arguments) or propaganda (group, feeling-based arguments). Both types of arguments will then be examined for any ideological connection.
It should be noted here that “propaganda” is not used here as a negative term – although it may itself be a “Devil Term” in many instances. Rather it is simply used as a means of dividing personal arguments from group-based arguments. Propaganda can be used negatively, and has been throughout time. However, individual persuasion can be just as destructive when strategically used as such.
Go on to Page 5
© 2004 by Xpatriated Texan
<< Home