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.

Análisis histórico-reflexivo y comparativo sobre la política exterior de los Estados Unidos hacia el mundo desde la época de la Guerra Fría hasta la actualidad. En particular, se enfatizan las características esenciales del gobierno demócrata de Barack Obama (2009-2017) y el actual, republicano, presidido por Donald Trump a los fines de resaltar sus diferencias e impacto tanto en política doméstica como en el ámbito internacional. La charla concluye con algunas reflexiones sobre las políticas domésticas e internacionales del Presidente Trump a la luz del COVID19 y su posible impacto en las elecciones presidenciales de noviembre próximo. / Oliver Griffith: Diplomático estadounidense retirado, con amplia experiencia en Europa, África y Latinoamérica. Experto en comunicación, miembro y director de la Cámara americana de Comercio en Francia y actualmente Director de la consultora Diplomatic Writing Service.

The topic of the diploma thesis is a comparison of the American activities during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama towards Iran, in regard to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. It observes the diplomatic actions in relation to Iran and other actors, who play an important role in this issue, and also some other methods, used by the world's leading superpower to prevent Iran from the development of nuclear weapons. The mentioned topic is situated into the broader context of continuity and change in the US security and foreign policy. The objective of the diploma thesis is to assess what where the differences in the US actions under Obama's administration, compared with the actions during the presidency of his predecessor, as well as how the Obama's administration followed them, and to assess how effective these actions were.

A number of incidents such as the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" rumor during the 2008 presidential election suggest that influential political blogs are playing a major role in setting the agenda of the legacy media. The power of the political blogosphere is forcing media practitioners, communication scholars and political theorists to re-conceptualize how issues arrive on the political and public agenda. This new phenomenon challenges the fundamental assumptions of agenda-setting theory to the extent that the 42-year old model, including the notion of a shared public agenda, should be reevaluated. By situating news agenda research within a larger intellectual context of agenda setting, this dissertation explored the intermedia agenda-setting relationship between political blogs and legacy news media, such as newspapers, network TV, and cable TV channels. Analyzing the contents count data of political blogs and legacy media and Internet Search Volume Index (SVI) data, this dissertation explored how coverage of a certain issue by top-ranking and influential political blogs may predict the coverage of the same issue by legacy news media. Employing a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods, the results of the study revealed that political blogs significantly predicted the coverage of the legacy media on the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" rumor over a period of five days. The results also showed that the coverage of the rumor by both the political blogs and legacy media significantly predicted the level of Internet searches related to the rumor on all five days. The study also found positive and statistically significant correlations between the coverage by the political blogs and legacy media on the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor and the volume of Internet searches on that rumor. The correlation was high on day 1, and decreased on each subsequent day. The study also found bi-directional agenda-setting relationships between the coverage of the political blogs and legacy media on the `Obama-is-a-Muslim' rumor. However, there was hardly any bi-directional relationship between the coverage of political blogs of the rumor and the volume of Internet searches related to the rumor. Although, the study found bi-directional relationship between the coverage of the legacy media on the rumor and the volume of Internet searched related to the rumor, the relationship faded away quickly. However, the study findings suggest that the perceived power of political blogs should be seen as trivial and ephemeral while that of the legacy news media should be seen as substantial and indelible in setting the public agenda. These findings may broaden our understanding of intermedia agenda-setting.

At the end of Permanence and Change, Kenneth Burke calls for a new orientation toward life and social action which he refers to as “the poetic metaphor” (261). This essay connects Burke's briefly used poetic metaphor with his theories on the use of “poetic” language in the essay “Semantic and Poetic Meaning.” What results from this synthesis is a critical tool for rhetorical analysis which allows for the discussion of style as a vehicle for communication about ethics and morals in public discourse. Obama's The Audacity of Hope is used as the example of a text which uses “poetic” language in order to discuss moral and ethical issues in a national arena. Obama ultimately dramatizes his own synthesis of values, putting himself in the position of a trusted intermediary. This analysis provides clarity on Burke's thinking at the end of Permanence and Change and helps us understand his contribution to the study of rhetoric and cooperation.

No description available.

No description available.

Yes / This contribution discusses the national security objectives and the political parameters of the Obama administration’s decision to shift towards a counterinsurgency strategy and increase troop levels in Afghanistan. On the basis of the key strategic documents that formed the basis of the interagency process, as well as the political constraints under which the Obama administration was operating, it is possible to understand the key factors that defined the policy. The article also explain the various contradictions between the geopolitical context, the strategic objectives as defined by Obama and means to achieve them. On the basis of such analysis it is clear that the policy could at best achieve a partial success.

America's founding fathers designed the Constitution as a malleable contract for governance, envisioning a republic with a struggle among co-equal actors that would serve to constrain and channel the struggle for power. The problem this study was designed to address is that presidents have used executive orders (EOs) when legislation is too difficult to pass due to divided party government, or when making sweeping changes to executive departments or agencies that historically required congressional approval. The purpose of this analysis was to explore whether a contemporary Democratic president are more likely than a Republican to use the EO as a unilateral strategy to pursue domestic/economic policy objectives during times of divided party government. This study compared the use of executive orders under divided government by Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic President Barack Obama, examining three EOs issued by each. Reagan and Obama viewed government differently. President Obama saw government as a solution to problems and President Reagan saw government as a source of problems. From this, I inferred that Democrats would be more likely than Republicans to favor federal government intervention in domestic/economic policy. Yet, though both presidents had different agendas and approaches, they both used the EO as a unilateral strategy under divided government. This may reflect that presidents understand that many in the public hold the president accountable for the economic performance of the United States, and economic wellbeing may lead to reelection of a president. / Master of Arts / America's founding fathers designed the Constitution as a flexible contract for control, imagining a republic with a struggle among co-equal actors that would serve to limit and guide the struggle for power. The problem this study was designed to address is that presidents have used executive orders (EOs) when laws were too difficult to pass due to divided party government, or when making far-reaching changes to departments or agencies that usually need congressional approval. The purpose of this study was to gain more insight as to whether a Democratic president was more likely than a Republican president to use executive orders to pursue domestic/economic policy goals when different parties controlled Congress and the presidency. The study examined the use of executive orders by Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic President Barack Obama under divided government, looking in depth at three executive orders each President issued. Reagan saw government as a source of problems and Obama saw government as a source of solutions. This led to the expectation that Democratic President Obama might use domestic/economic intervention by the federal government more often than Republican President Reagan would. Yet, although both presidents had different plans and methods, they used the executive order similarly during times of divided government. This likely reflects that presidents -- regardless of party -- understand that many in the public hold the president accountable for the economic performance of the United States, and economic wellbeing may lead to reelection of a president.

This essay examines the persuasive side of language in a speech given by Senator Barack Obama on Super Tuesday in February 2008. It studies how Senator Obama utilizes language to convince and persuade his audience. This is done from an Aristotelian point of view, meaning that the study focuses foremost on how the senator’s word choices relate to Aristotle’s three means of persuasion, ethos, pathos and logos. Those basic guiding principles are relevant to use since Aristotle’s work on the subject of rhetoric is still today one of the most relevant works in that field. The analysis is basically performed through personal observations guided by previous studies, within the frame of Aristotelian rhetoric. The results show how Senator Obama enforces the three means of persuasion through language and how it can be considered persuasive. The study might add to rhetoric studies from a linguistic perspective since it reaches a better understanding of language used in the field of politics, where rhetoric is a prominent component.