Roderick Hart may be among the few Americans who believe that what politicians say in a campaign actually matters. He also believes that campaigns work. Even as television coverage, political ads, and opinion polls turn elections into field days for marketing professionals, Hart argues convincingly that campaigns do play their role in sustaining democracy, mainly because they bring about a dialogue among candidates, the press, and the people. Here he takes a close look at the exchange of ideas through language used in campaign speeches, political advertising, public debates, print and broadcast news, and a wide variety of letters to the editor. In each case, the participants choose their words differently, and this, according to Hart, can be a frustrating challenge to anyone trying to make sense of the issues. Yet he finds that the process is good for Americans: campaigns inform us about issues, sensitize us to the concerns of others, and either encourage us to vote or at least heighten our sense of the political world. Hart comes to his conclusions by using DICTION, a computer program that has enabled him to unearth substantive data, such as the many subtle shifts found in political language, over the past fifty years. This approach yields a rich variety of insights, including empirically based explanations of impressions created by political candidates. For example, in 1996 Bill Clinton successfully connected with voters by using many human-interest words--"you," "us," "people," "family." Bob Dole, however, alienated the public and even undermined his own claims of optimism by using an abundance of denial words--"can't," "shouldn't," "couldn't." Hart also tracks issue buzzwords such as "Medicare" to show how candidates and voters define and readjust their positions throughout the campaign dialogue. In the midst of today's increased media hype surrounding elections, Americans and the candidates they elect do seem to be listening to each other--as much as they did in years gone by. Hart's wide-ranging, objective investigation upends many of our stereotypes about political life and presents a new, more bracing, understanding of contemporary electoral behavior.
Lichter and Noyes, Good Intentions Make Bad News, 250–1. 14 . Bill Carter, “Was TV Slow to Take Brown Seriously? The Networks Say No,” New York Times, October 18, 1992, A19. 15. Adam Nagourney and Leslie Phillips, “Donahue, Clinton Duel ...
Pete , 116 , 117 State of the Union Address , 25 , 110 Steed , Diane , 142 Steinbrenner , George , 127 Stevens , A. J. , 73 Stewart , D. , 19 Stiles , W. , 26 , 46 Stop Forced Busing , 130 Stratton , Walter , 142 Strayer , J. R. , 49 ...
Clinton spoke of his love of rock n' roll, leading Hall to ask him whether he preferred the “young” or “old” Elvis stamp that hadbeenreleased bytheU.S. PostalService. Clinton said he favored the“young Elvis” stamp because whenElvis ...
In Unfree Speech, he presents a bold, convincing argument for the repeal of laws that regulate political spending and contributions, contending that they violate the right to free speech and ultimately diminish citizens' power.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and David S. Birdsell. Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an ... Kaid, Lynda Lee, John C. Tedesco, Dianne G. Bystrom, and Mitchell S. McKinney, eds. The Millennium Election: Communication in the ...
Read anew the story of the exodus that frees people from debt and slavery, the prophets who denounce the rich and ruling classes, the stories of Jesus's healing and parables about fair wages, and the early church's sharing of goods.
This is the full Mueller Report, as released on April 18, 2019, by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Presents quotes from notable speeches and interviews by Michelle Obama on topics including family life, her husband, the 2008 Presidential election, and being a role model.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it.
This is a collection of the supreme court's major decisions on campaign speech and campaign finance. Supreme court decisions are in the public domain and are freely available at such websites as supreme.justia.com and law.cornell.edu