Suchergebnisse

This article investigates the rhetoric employed by the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) in the UK during the campaign for women's suffrage. It argues that the rhetoric, as a result of adopting a militant approach, increasingly served the purpose of justifying the method rather than the cause. Based on an analysis of speeches by leading members of the WSPU, the article finds that the Union rhetoric justified the use of militancy by systematically drawing on democratic and social values, attacking the credibility of the legislators, promoting binary thinking and situating the conflict within the framework of a "just war."

The United States is waging a war of words. Rhetoric forms the basis for the strategy in the war on terror. From the descriptions of terrorism itself the actual political activities can be explained. According to recent war & terrorism studies, three alternative descriptions are possible: international terrorism is found in foreign nations, can be perceived as a transnational network, or is seen as within the attacked nations themselves. It depends on which perspective is taken on international terrorism which strategies will be employed in order to fight it. The strategy of the United States is based on the prescription that terrorism is mainly to be located in foreign nations, so called haven states. This understanding makes the strategies of the US at least logical. Results from war & terrorism studies differ in their explanations & thus recommendations on how to fight international terrorism. This allows for the interpretation, that the strategies of the United States are not designed to reduce international terrorism but for long term military engagement especially in the Middle East. References. Adapted from the source document.

With an uncompromising strategy, simple language and distinctive communication via social media, Donald Trump has managed to motivate people who feel like they are the losers of globalization to give him their vote and to contribute to his victory in the 2016 presidential election. In his rhetoric, he always followed three principles: simplicity, repetition, and sensationalism. Trump's speeches are conceived primarily to attract the attention of working-class whites. His rhetorical style gives the impression that he is doing everything in the interest of the working class, when in fact he is promoting the interests of big business. Trump's topic abuse is present on a number of issues, most notably in speeches about illegal immigrants, whereby he strikes concern among the impoverished masses, expecting them to react in his favour in the election. Thereby, he is not concerned that his statements spread discord and contribute to the negative atmosphere in the country and to numerous attacks on minorities. Donald Trump's behaviour and speeches are full of contradictions. He praises togetherness, but does not believe in shared values, permanent alliances, or lessons from history.

"Words are actions, and leaders know it. This thought-provoking study sheds light on the rhetorical battles that have shaped Australia's recent political history - and it's a cracking good read to boot."--Dr Dennis Grube, University of Cambridge, UK This book examines both the rhetorical content of contemporary public leadership and the leadership methods pioneered by early English statesman Sir Francis Bacon. In particular, it considers the use of public rhetoric to defend leadership legitimacy in six case studies, drawing on leadership contests in recent Australian political history. The authors map out the complex language of leadership in contemporary politics through chapter-length portraits of the inter-related political rhetoric of prime ministers Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull, plus former foreign minister Bob Carr and indigenous leader Noel Pearson. The process is a novel application of leadership analysis derived from the political philosophy of Francis Bacon, who emerges as a founder of the study, and indeed practice, of political and public leadership. The book will appeal to students and scholars across the fields of political science, communication and rhetorical studies, and political history

A review essay on books by (1) Joseph V. Femia, Machiavelli Revisited (Cardiff: U Wales Press, 2004); (2) Mikael Hornqvist, Machiavelli and Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2004); & (3) Paul A. Rahe [Ed], Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2006).

Foucault, Veyne and others have indicated that early Christian morality was firmly embedded in the Graeco-Roman ethos and should not be regarded as unique. The article elaborates, using the notion of the "regulatory body," expressed in terms of Laquer's "one-sex model" to show how rhetorics of love were determined by the body politic of the "regulatory body," entrenching, empowering and confirming societal structures. It is argued that early Christianity's rhetoric foists upon the terminologies of Graeco-Roman erotic love, radicalising these terminologies by interiorisation.

This article examines presidential rhetoric about the Vietnam War since 9/11. It argues that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have faced a rhetorical dilemma when dealing with the legacies of Vietnam because of the potential harm that they believe these legacies may have on public perception of their own military policies. Therefore, although Presidents Bush and Obama have often resisted making comparisons between contemporary conflicts and Vietnam, they have also developed a rhetorical strategy, built on the revisionism of Ronald Reagan and others, which celebrates Vietnam as a "noble cause" in American history, while they have also selected other "lessons" from Vietnam that could be useful to their overseas interventions. This rhetorical strategy suggests that Americans should continuously prepare to make long‐term military commitments.