By exploring classical and contemporary conceptions of rhetorical ethos, this thesis assembles theories of analysis and then applies them in the form of rhetorical analysis of the rhetorical ethos exhibited by President George W. Bush in his presidential speeches. The theoretical investigation reveals the extensive use of the ethical appeal in all manner of rhetorical situations in the contemporary world but especially focuses on how political rhetoric has come to rely predominantly on this persuasive appeal. The study examines several speeches given by President Bush and concludes that his success as president is attributed largely to the sophisticated rhetorical strategies executed by his administration, especially its construction of a presidential ethos. However, the inquiry also reveals a disconcerting degree of misleading and deceptive rhetoric, which the author argues has resulted in a serious decline in public support for President Bush as he approaches his sixth year in office.

Thesis advisor: Marc Landy / The election of 2000 was the most tumultuous election of the present day - an election that involved numerous lawsuits and was ultimately decided by the votes of Supreme Court Justices. What many Americans do not know or remember is that there was another election in 1876 with largely similar circumstances - disputed electoral votes (in Florida again) and a winner (Rutherford B. Hayes) produced by a Supreme Court Justice. This essay aims to examine these two elections in detail in order to demonstrate the flaws of the U.S. Constitutional system and the different manners in which they were resolved. The second part of the essay aims to determine whether the purported illegitimacy of the two winners (Hayes and Bush) affected their respective presidencies. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2005. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science. / Discipline: College Honors Program.

O objetivo dessa tese é realizar uma análise geopolítica das operações militares empreendidas no primeiro mandato do Governo George Walker Bush, posterior aos ataques terroristas do Onze de Setembro em 2001. Entendemos que as estratégias adotadas nestes eventos foram resultantes do documento Orientação de Planejamento de Defesa produzido pelo Pentágono em 1992, logo após o fim da Guerra Fria. A hipótese que procuramos defender é de que as formulações geopolíticas que orientaram a Doutrina Truman durante a Guerra Fria estão presentes neste documento e foram mantidas como guias para planos de ação ao longo de toda a década de 90 e utilizadas como ferramentas analíticas na grande estratégia do Governo George Walker Bush. Para demonstrar esta hipótese realizamos primeiramente o resgate do pensamento geopolítico de Halford J. Mackinder e Nicholas J. Spykman, em seguida fizemos as conexões das idéias estratégicas existentes em vários documentos que estavam vigentes na década de 90; e por fim, verificamos como estas idéias puderam ser implementadas nas Operações Liberdade Infinita, na Guerra do Afeganistão, em 2001; e Operação Iraque Livre, na Guerra do Iraque, em 2003. A metodologia utilizada foi a pesquisa em fontes primárias apoiadas em documentos originais do Governo dos Estados Unidos e na literatura bibliográfica das obras basilares de Halford. J. Mackinder, Nicholas J. Spykman e Zbigniew Brzezinski para uma análise crítica dos modelos teóricos geopolíticos. / The objective of this thesis is to achieve a geopolitical analysis of the military operations undertaken in the first mandate of George Walker Bush government immediately after the terrorist attacks on september 11th, 2001. It is understood that the strategies adopted in those events were a result of the document Defense Planning Guidance by Pentagon in 1992, right after the end of the cold war. The hypothesis we intend to defend is that the geopolitical formulations that orientate the Truman Doctrine. In the period of the cold war are present in this document and were maintained as guides for action plans during all the decade of 90 and used as analytical tools in the great strategy of George Walker Bush government. In order to demonstrate this hypothesis, first of all we performed the redemption of the geopolitical thought of Halford J. Mackinder and Nicholas J. Spykman, followed by connections of the strategical existing ideas in several documents which were in effect in the decade of 90 and we finally verified how those ideas could be implemented in Operation Enduring Freedom in the Afghanistan war in 2001; and Operation Iraq Freedom in the war of Iraq in 2003. The used methodology was a research in primary sources sustained by original documents of The United States of America government and in the bibliografic literature of the basiliary work by Halford J. Mackinder, Nicholas J. Spykman and Zbigniew Brzezinski for a critical analysis of the theoretical geopolitical models.

<p>Rhetoric and politics have been interrelated through time. Major political leaders have tried to influence their followers through well-organized and well-written political speeches since the Roman Empire and Byzantium. As one of the original writers of rhetoric, Aristotle referred to it as the art of finding the best aspect of an argument that tends to convince the audience. In my thesis, I analyze and compare the rhetoric of President George W. Bush with that of President Barack Obama. Specifically, I compare and contrast their respective State of the Union Addresses. The questions that I want to answer lay upon the methods both Presidents use during their respective speeches. My thesis also discusses their respective prioritized topics. I give a short presentation of the importance of rhetoric, ranging from the Roman Empire to today‟s American politics. I also comment on the meaning of rhetoric in the modern age. In order to perform my analysis, I use the five stage method of rhetorical analysis: Context, Disposition, Means to convince, Argumentation Analysis and Style. The different argument styles of President Bush and President Obama are discussed.</p>

The TV show is a central focus of American life, one that not only reflects but also produces social imaginaries for the American audience that support the way people interact and engage with reality. It is the nation’s most influential storyteller, which dominates the nation’s imagination and understanding of reality. This dissertation explores the political and cultural meanings of four TV shows from the George W. Bush era: The West Wing (1999-2007), Deadwood (2004-06), The Wire (2002-08) and Heroes (2006-10). In examining these TV shows, this dissertation aims to shed light on both the origins of the state of exception, its conduct, its purpose, and the possibility of meaningful critique of or resistance to the state of exception. Chapter I discusses The West Wing, focusing on President Bartlet’s decision-making process regarding the assassination of Abdul Shareef, so as to elucidate the decisive actions of a sovereign figure in a state of exception. Chapter II explores Deadwood’s resurrection of the nineteenth-century mining camp in our twenty-first century, in terms of the capitalist state of exception. In discussing the show’s portrayal of the conflicts among the main characters, this chapter reveals that the same sovereign logic of exception is innate in the expansion of capitalism. Chapter III examines The Wire’s depiction of rebellious petty-sovereigns such as Major Colvin, Detectives McNulty and Freamon. According to The Wire, the claims of equality are deeply urgent in the bleak reality of contemporary America. With their commitment to equality and justice, the petty-sovereigns intervene in the bleak reality in their subversive ways. Chapter IV explores Heroes’s rendering of the main characters’ struggles against a fictional national emergency, the Company’s conspiracy to blow up half of New York City. In this chapter, I argue that Heroes portrays a political subject that attempts to constitute itself outside biopolitical sovereign power—what Hardt and Negri would call the advent of the multitude. While explicating the struggles of the main characters, I argue that its limitation in envisioning a new world underscores how contemporary critics fail to see past sovereign politics when they imagine another world. / English

Rhetoric and politics have been interrelated through time. Major political leaders have tried to influence their followers through well-organized and well-written political speeches since the Roman Empire and Byzantium. As one of the original writers of rhetoric, Aristotle referred to it as the art of finding the best aspect of an argument that tends to convince the audience. In my thesis, I analyze and compare the rhetoric of President George W. Bush with that of President Barack Obama. Specifically, I compare and contrast their respective State of the Union Addresses. The questions that I want to answer lay upon the methods both Presidents use during their respective speeches. My thesis also discusses their respective prioritized topics. I give a short presentation of the importance of rhetoric, ranging from the Roman Empire to today‟s American politics. I also comment on the meaning of rhetoric in the modern age. In order to perform my analysis, I use the five stage method of rhetorical analysis: Context, Disposition, Means to convince, Argumentation Analysis and Style. The different argument styles of President Bush and President Obama are discussed.

American presidents have maintained an equilibrium between the role of church and state in government affairs via the nation’s civil religion and a “rhetorical contract” between those secular and sacred interests. While other presidents have incorporated religion in their rhetorical execution of office, George W. Bush has done so in a manner different from his predecessors, emphasizing the role of faith in his administration’s beliefs, actions, and policies. Such rhetoric upsets the tenuous relationship between sectarian and secular affairs. Bush’s breach of the rhetorical contract can be explained by Foucault’s notion of pastoral power. Using practices once associated with the church, the savvy government leader may better control his public. I argue that President Bush has shifted the balance of power between organized religion and government, specifically by means of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, thereby corrupting traditional notions of civil religion in the process of implementing his unique form of new pastoral power.

Before the United States Constitution was ratified there was much debate about what war powers the executive and legislative branches should hold. After much deliberation it was decided that the power to declare war would fall under the control of Congress. But as time passed, control over initiating military action began to shift from Congress to the President. This thesis examines the shift of power from the legislature to the President. The thesis explains the difference between a declaration of war, an authorization of force, as well as using the military as a police force. It examines the precedents set by Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, as well as the more recent methods used by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. It also analyzes some of the major court cases that have dealt with the War Powers Clause and several War Powers Resolution. The information collected in this thesis comes from biographies, journal articles, and newspaper articles regarding the subject. This thesis shows that the executive has taken more power in initiating and continuing armed conflict and that the declaration of war, as defined in the Constitution, is obsolete.

<p>The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether the individual political leader is important for the analysis of international relations. Traditionally the focus of investigation in international relations has been on the nation-state, or the systems level, and as a result the individual level has been somewhat neglected. Using the theory of political psychology there is a possibility of finding nuances that might not be found if the focus of the investigation is on the nation-state. With the help of key concepts such as personality, emotion, cognition, and social identity decision making that has affected world politics have been examined. An empirical examination of the political psychology has been made by applying the theory to a case study, George W Bush. By applying the theory of political psychology to the decision making process used by George W Bush and his Administration it will be shown that the individual can impact world politics, especially in the case of the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, one of the flaws of the theory of political psychology, its problem in handling the concept of global terrorism, is briefly discussed. The conclusion that has been drawn in this thesis is that the individual level of analysis is just as important as the systems level or the domestic level of analysis.</p>

The Bush Doctrine represents a paradigm shift in international security policy. Never had a foreign policy demonstrated such will through unilateralism, preemptive militarism, and a sense of exceptionalism. I argue that this shift in policy resists modern international order in an attempt to reestablish ancient modes of power and control. The international system maintains order through rules and institutions which are perceived to be legitimate because they have the consent of the governed. An example of this would be the UN, where member states engage in a democratic deliberation geared towards reaching understanding and consensus. However, order breaks down when a member state fails to recognize the legitimacy of a rule or institution. This was the case for the Bush Doctrine when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq without a UN resolution. The Bush Doctrine is the embodiment of neoconservatism, an intellectual movement influenced by the thoughts of Leo Strauss. What neoconservatism has inherited from Strauss was a fear of relativism. Strauss's critique of modernity holds that liberal society fosters moral relativism which, in turn, destroys the moral fabric of society. Strauss calls for a revival of antiquity, more specifically a Platonic design of society, where elites rule through the use of myths which provide society with moral truth and national purpose. Neoconservatism has projected Strauss's war on modernity onto the international level. The Bush Doctrine assumes its core democratic values to be universal and thus views consensus building as unnecessary. Rather, deliberating on 'right' may enlighten us to the conventional nature of morality. Therefore, neoconservatism works to reestablish ancient modes of control through the use of moral absolutes, where the practice of these values, consequentially, resists international order governed by liberal principles. As a result, neoconservative policies disrupt international order and isolate the U.S. from the modern world.