Zugl.: Hamburg, Universiẗat, Diplomarbeit, 2004.

Master of Arts / Department of Communication Studies, Theatre & Dance / LeAnn Brazeal / President George W. Bush's September 20, 2001 televised address to a Joint Session of Congress stands in history as his Administration's first deliberate official rhetorical response to the events of 9/11 and the first instance of the "Bush Doctrine." Although 9/11 has become an increasing topic of scholarly review and this speech is the first presidential policy response, few have explored Bush's choice of metaphors in this speech. Metaphors are a powerful tool of rhetoric, especially in political rhetoric, because metaphors are uniquely adept at simplifying complex topics, and a study of metaphor can reveal a speaker's underlying worldview and beliefs. Through metaphorical analysis, this study identifies nine clusters of metaphor in Bush's September 20, 2001 address: FORCE/WAR, BODY, FEAR, LIGHT/DARK, NEAR/FAR, UNITY, FAITH/FATE, GOOD/EVIL and SAVAGE. This study contrasts metaphor clusters to "prophetic dualism," a worldview that defines foreign policy within the context of a specific set of moral beliefs, and concludes that the artifact meets all tenets of prophetic dualism as well as the core characteristics of presidential crisis rhetoric and civil religion (although the artifact does not meet all characteristics of presidential war rhetoric). The study closes with a discussion of practical, rhetorical and methodological implications that may be useful to scholars of rhetoric and political science, including suggestions for future research of prophetic dualism and presidential war rhetoric.

No description available.

No description available.

The use of unilateral force under George W. Bush is not a new phenomenon in US foreign policy. As the author argues, it is merely a continuation of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy and is deeply rooted in both the foreign policy traditions of Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism. The analysis concludes that Clinton used unilateralist foreign policy with a 'smile' whereas the Bush administration uses it with an attitude. / Die unilaterale Außenpolitik unter George W. Bush ist kein neues Phänomen der US-Diplomatie. Dem Autor zufolge ist sie vielmehr eine Fortführung der Politik der Clinton-Regierung und hat ihre Wurzeln in den Traditionen eines Andrew Jackson und Woodrow Wilson. Clinton vermochte jedoch seine unilaterale Politik mit einem "Lächeln" zu verkaufen, wohingegen die Art und Weise der Bush-Administration stets Irritationen hervorrief.

The presented diploma thesis deals with the issue of American immigration policy, with emphasis on the immigration policies of the two former US presidents - George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and their comparison. The main purpose of this thesis is to answer the question, why their comprehensive immigration reform plans failed. KEYWORDS US; Immigration; Immigration Policies; George W. Bush; Barack Obama

This is a rhetorical study of President George W. Bush’s use of the - ideographic dialectic in his appeals for support for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as reelection in 2004. I argue that President Bush’s use of the - dialectic in each case provided him with specific rhetorical resources that enhanced his ability to seek support from the four discourse communities that constitute the foreign policy public: unilateralists, multilateralists, regionalists and coalition builders. The terministic flexibility of the ideographic dialectic worked well enough to encourage meanings in each foreign policy discourse community that were consonant with that group’s worldview. This allowed Bush to appeal to the disparate groups and appear as though he advocated their desired policies, when in fact, he did not promote any specific policy. This project contributes to the theoretical understanding of the ideograph by complicating the concept of the public. Further, it adds credence to claims that the War on Terror is a never-ending war.

This dissertation examined the presidential elections of 1992, 1996 and 2000 for the narrative tools used to persuade Latino voters. Using Walt Fisher's narrative theory, I evaluated the various parts of the American Dream myth, looking specifically at the characters and settings used in the candidate's narrative. Then, I evaluated the values in those narratives through the lens of the Plan of Delano, specifically looking for ways these candidates actually reinforced important Latino values. The new tellings of the American Dream myth valued specific characters- characters that had been blessed by the American Dream. Clinton's 1992 character had to work to gain success, but he was also blessed. George P. Bush (George W. Bush's nephew) was another character blessed by the American Dream. As a first-generation American, he represented the hope that brings many to America; the idea that their children could have opportunities the parents could not. The settings of the American Dream story were also important. These settings varied greatly-from the decrepit and desolate to the fanciful and idyllic-but they represented all the different places where the American Dream is possible. Hope, Arkansas is not a place where much hope seems to exist. But even a community as impoverished as Hope can be the birthplace of a President, because of the amazing ability of the Dream to permeate even the darkest corners of America. The barrios of the Southwest appear to be hopeless, but as Clinton's telling of the myth reminded Latinos, even people growing up in the barrios should have hope-because the American Dream can exist anywhere. These values, these characters, these settings have added to the rich rhetorical history of the American Dream myth. These presidential candidates expanded the places where that hope could reach, and the people who could be blessed by the Dream. All of this culminated in a story that Latinos could relate to, that they shared in and that rhetorically persuaded them to believe in these candidates.

Universiẗat, Diss--Passau, 2008.

In my diploma thesis, I deal with the federal budget of the US as an instrument designed to promote partisan policies on the example of the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama in order to find out whether there are ideological differences in the budgetary policy of Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of the 21st century. The main part of the thesis is devoted to the analysis of the revenue side and spending side of the budgets of both presidents and the development of the balance they managed. The analysis suggests that, although the nature of the time, phase of the economic cycle and other external influences have a significant impact on budgets, the federal budget can still be considered as an effective tool for expressing partisan preferences.