Suchergebnisse

Suggests that the distinction between the science of economics & the art of economic policy lies in the ability of each to "constrain the play of sophistry." The rhetoric of economic policy descends into sophistry most readily where property rights are weakly protected & the state substitutes force for opinion. The evolution of rhetoric since antiquity is briefly traced before exploring the relationships among rhetoric, force, & opinion, highlighting the thought of David Hume & John Lott. In looking at the meeting of economic policy & rhetoric, a definition of sophistry is offered & it is argued that the realm of economic policy has developed to accommodate sophistry & deceit. The use of metaphors -- particularly false metaphors -- in economic policy conversations is then examined, arguing that such sophistries reduce public trust. 30 References. J. Zendejas

"Few developments in contemporary politics are more striking than the frequency with which the term "fascist" is used to describe specific actors and groups. This marks a qualitative shift in our political discourse. For decades, "fascist" was an epithet used to brand one's political opponents, regardless of political ideology or governing philosophy, but most often to attack a specific individual. With the rise of extremist parties and candidates in Europe, the U.S., and around the globe, however, even mainstream political commentators have begun using the term "fascism" to describe what they see as a dangerous movement that has revived and repackaged many of the strategies long thought to have been relegated to the margins of political rhetoric. This book defines and interprets the common persuasive devices that characterize fascist discourse to understand the nature of its enduring appeal, and which has resurfaced as one of the most pressing problems of our time. A definition of fascism that guides the contributors here draws from the work of Kenneth Burke: the sustained and systematic deployment of rhetorical devices aimed at promoting the cult of irrationality by identifying both the victimhood and the inborn dignity of a newly crystalized social group, sanctioned by tradition, whose rebirth requires the spiritualization of injustice and internal and external purification through redemptive violence. This definition has much in common with established understandings of fascism, but a rhetorical approach emphasizes less how fascism manifests itself in parties, platforms, regimes, movements, and organizations, but rather on the tendencies in language itself that make these manifestations possible. Introductory chapters focus on general theories of fascism drawn from 20th-century history and theory. The remaining chapters investigate specific historical figures and their relationship to contemporary rhetorics. As indicated by their titles, each chapter focuses on defining a specific rhetorical device that seems characteristic of fascist rhetoric. This book does not promise a comprehensive inquiry into all aspects of fascism. The topics were selected by the authors based on their own expertise and because they illuminate a specific rhetorical device. A reader, by the end, should have acquired many of the conceptual critical resources by which to identify familiar fascist strategies of persuasion and propaganda"--

The absence of powers has made local safeguarding more difficult to tackle, but where leaders have influenced and challenged effectively, success has been achieved, says Jim Gamble

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface: Style and Rhetoric -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Style at the Center of Popular Culture -- 2. The Social and Commercial Structuring of Style -- 3. The Political Consequences of Style -- 4. A Rhetoric of Style for the Twenty-first Century -- 5. Gun-Culture Style and Its Rhetoric in the United States -- Postface, with an Imaginary Etymology -- References -- Index -- Author Bio -- Back Cover

Any institution seeking selfpreservation faces a discrepancy and trade-off between its stated, idealistic, long-term ideology, and its compromising, immediate interests. The first is a source of popular legitimacy; the second ensures day-to-day survival. Hamas, an Islamist movement and the de facto government of the Gaza Strip, does not escape this dilemma. Hamas is a pragmatic, rational actor which knows that permanence violence toward Israel, though in line with its ideology, is not a sustainable policy. Hamas cannot afford the continual loss of human and material capital, and is accountable to foreign actors. Still, this ideological extremism results in the ideology–interests inconsistency being magnified. The movement thus has come up with innovative rhetorical strategies and justificatory discourses to bridge the gap. These bridging strategies can be explained in light of the distinction between fundamental and operative ideologies, as well as the theory of framing. The result of these necessary practices is that the ideological goals get blurred with immediate interests. This mix is what ultimately drives Hamas' strategy and decisionmaking process.