This thesis seeks to explain the discursive construction of national security threats facing the United States from 2001-2018. The driving argument is that the nation's perception of threats and conceptualization of itself are vulnerable to Presidential rhetoric. Presidents convey threats through rhetorical frameworks, a simplified means to present a manipulated perception of reality to a wider audience, which intentionally provoke reactions from the nation to garner consensus towards executive decision-making. Presidents apply frames from prior administrations as well as new frames to define adverse states, organizations, groups of people, etc., and to justify disciplinary practices, military action, or policy implementation against threats. Primarily, they portray threats as the binary opposite of the American national identity to reinforce the country's legitimacy in national security decision-making. This discourse influences how the public internalizes major issues facing the nation and triggers emotions that can either unite or divide the national identity. This research maps variation among the rhetorical frameworks and strategies of President George W. Bush, President Barack Obama, and President Donald J. Trump to evaluate: how national security threats are constructed, how the nation interprets threats, and the resulting social and political effects. / Master of Arts

This dissertation analyzes moments in which presidents interact with transnational audiences, identifying and explaining their rhetorical strategies for developing a global imaginary. Specifically, I first consider how George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev negotiate geo-political and spatial metaphors leading up to their joint press conference, symbolically ending the Cold War. Second, I discuss how Bill Clinton and George W. Bush universalize the trope of “democracy” in their speeches before the United Nations General Assembly. Third, I explain how Barack Obama figures transnational citizens and himself as a global leader in his transnational town hall meetings. Together, these case studies show the ways contemporary presidents call forth particular understandings of “the global” through speech. Politically, this study is significant because it broadens our understanding of the institution of the presidency from the framework of a national institution to that of a global one. Rhetorically, this study illuminates the relationship between presidential speech, transnational audiences, and the rhetorical imaginary of the global sphere.

This project explores the importance of historically specific theological discourses in United States presidential rhetoric. To do this I call in question the common assumption that God-language is simply used by presidents out of strategic advantage, or personal belief, rather than as a defining, and necessary, feature of American identity. Contrary to this approach, I describe how theologies have historically been a necessary part of presidential rhetoric as presidents use theologies to endow national action with divine significance. I do this in cases of presidential rhetoric from Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy, and Barack Obama that define the foreign policy mission of America with specific liberal Christian theological discourses. As presidents take up theological discourses to construct American morality the church/state distinction is threatened as one theological discourse is at risk of becoming the official state theology. Preventing this from happening, however, is the relative theological diversity of the American denominational system. Those who hold other theological orientations react negatively when their theology is not used to define national morality. In the cases I describe, presidents may use God-language strategically to garner support for their political actions, but when they do so the American public tends to read that God-language as having a theological dimension. Secular commentators that look for how presidents strategically use God-language to appeal to voters do not recognize that words-about-God are involved in theological networks of meaning-making that compete to define national morality. And where secular commentators fail to see this theological dimension, the religious American public does. This project attempts to bring the religious public's sensitivity to God-language into the academic study of presidential rhetoric by reading political discourse for its theological dimension.

This project examines the impact of environmentalism as it operates in presidential rhetoric after Earth Day 1970. Specifically, I look at how environmentalism is constructed and then utilized in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, H.W. Bush, and William Jefferson Clinton. I argue that U.S. presidents use the rhetoric of environmentalism as a rhetorical tool to define their ideal citizen, interpret complex rhetorical situations for the American people, and introduce policies. Environmental vocabularies, I argue, are crucial to understanding presidential communication, as they enable presidents to move policy discussions away from technical discourse and frame ideas using accessible and familiar terms. This project, in many ways, highlights the discursive identity of the American people and the role of structuring vocabularies in presidential power. In each post-Earth Day administration, the citizenry is invited to participate in a version of environmentalism that also reflects the chief executive's political vision for the country. Through a Burkean cluster and agon analysis, each of the three case studies reveals the unique way each presidency defines environmentalism and the strategic function of each definition. Chapter 3 uses a cluster-agon analysis to demonstrate how environmental rhetoric helps Ronald Reagan construct his economic policy. Chapter 4 argues that H.W. Bush's unique definition of environmentalism functions as a strategic communication tool that helps shape his domestic and international policies. It was also an important step in breaking down binaries between economic development and environmentalism that had shaped present-day understandings of environmentalism. A cluster-agon analysis reveals that although he was considered to be a failed environmental president, Bush's definition of environmentalism laid the groundwork for future, more successful environmental presidencies. As the last case study in this project, Chapter 6 looks at environmentalism within President Clinton's presidency, arguing that his definition of environmentalism operationalizes a unique cluster of terms that allows him to advocate for social justice issues and circumvent a lame-duck Congress. By understanding the environment as a set of values and not a tangible object, these case studies unpack the wide variety of cultural work that its language is able to do. This research on a macro level is an analysis of political communication strategy, understanding what words work and what words don't. Unlike many rhetorical projects, however, this project uses environmentalism as a lens through which the possibilities and limits of presidential power can be explored.

This project examines how Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton discussed issues of poverty and welfare from Johnson’s declaration of War on Poverty in 1964 to Clinton’s signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996. I argue that there are four critical tensions relevant to the debate concerning contemporary poverty in the United States—politics vs. policy, deserving vs. undeserving, help vs. hinder, and equality vs. freedom—and the key to improving the manner in which the nation confronts the problem of poverty requires understanding and negotiating these tensions. The analysis reveals that the five presidents had a mixed but overall rather poor record in confronting the four paradoxes. In general they tended either to avoid the tensions altogether, or fall to one or the other extreme. That being said, the analysis also reveals that there is considerable common ground concerning some critical issues between all the presidents, whether they were Democrats or Republicans, ideologically moderate or more partisan. Foremost among these are the beliefs that equal opportunity should be the overarching ideal, work should be rewarded well, and those that cannot help themselves should be supported as generously as possible by the government. I conclude that the 1996 law, while based in part on questionable assumptions concerning the condition of the poor, could lead to a significant re-framing of the debate away from the generally unpopular focus on welfare and welfare recipients and toward the working poor and the conditions and difficulties under which they labor, which could potentially lead to other positive transformations beneficial to the American poor.

From Jimmy Carter’s self-identification as a “born again Christian” in the 1976 presidential campaign to George W. Bush’s declaration of “Christ” as his favorite political philosopher “because he changed my heart” in a Republican primary debate of the 2000 campaign, presidential speeches and campaigns are often laced with religious language. Such an observation is nothing new. However, many scholars and political observers do not know what to make of such religious references. Such language is often dismissed as either shameless pandering to religious constituencies or something hopelessly out of place in American politics. This dissertation attempts a deeper analysis of this controversial subject by identifying how presidents use the rhetorical resources of religion by employing religious argument patterns stemming from the Jewish and Christian religious traditions in presidential speeches. Specifically, this dissertation explores how the last five presidents (Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush) have used such religious rhetorical forms in attempts to strike a symbolic chord within the larger American public. The religious rhetorical forms explored herein, if employed judiciously, can serve as political shibboleths—or passwords—which indicate a basic level of identification with the public thanks to the basic elements, such as transformation, atonement, and renewal, which comprise the mythical core of these forms.

White House ceremonies honoring sports champions -"presidential sports encomia" - have become common events in presidential communication since the Carter Administration. In the last quarter-century, more than one hundred presidential sports encomia have taken place, with US presidents honoring both professional and intercollegiate athletes. Presidential sports encomia not only afford Chief Executives an opportunity to stand alongside champions, creating a "winner-by-association" effect, but also allow them to articulate the importance of sports in American society. Whether addressing civic responsibility, patriotism, or race relations, presidential sports encomia ultimately connect athletic achievement to American ideals. In this way, the symbolic power of sports is employed in the development and maintenance of American civil religion. Analysis of these ceremonies reveals how US presidents use the rhetorical resources of sports encomia for both their own political agendas and the larger institution of the presidency.

From Jimmy Carter’s self-identification as a “born again Christian” in the 1976 presidential campaign to George W. Bush’s declaration of “Christ” as his favorite political philosopher “because he changed my heart” in a Republican primary debate of the 2000 campaign, presidential speeches and campaigns are often laced with religious language. Such an observation is nothing new. However, many scholars and political observers do not know what to make of such religious references. Such language is often dismissed as either shameless pandering to religious constituencies or something hopelessly out of place in American politics. This dissertation attempts a deeper analysis of this controversial subject by identifying how presidents use the rhetorical resources of religion by employing religious argument patterns stemming from the Jewish and Christian religious traditions in presidential speeches. Specifically, this dissertation explores how the last five presidents (Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush) have used such religious rhetorical forms in attempts to strike a symbolic chord within the larger American public. The religious rhetorical forms explored herein, if employed judiciously, can serve as political shibboleths—or passwords—which indicate a basic level of identification with the public thanks to the basic elements, such as transformation, atonement, and renewal, which comprise the mythical core of these forms.

This project examines how Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton discussed issues of poverty and welfare from Johnson’s declaration of War on Poverty in 1964 to Clinton’s signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996. I argue that there are four critical tensions relevant to the debate concerning contemporary poverty in the United States—politics vs. policy, deserving vs. undeserving, help vs. hinder, and equality vs. freedom—and the key to improving the manner in which the nation confronts the problem of poverty requires understanding and negotiating these tensions. The analysis reveals that the five presidents had a mixed but overall rather poor record in confronting the four paradoxes. In general they tended either to avoid the tensions altogether, or fall to one or the other extreme. That being said, the analysis also reveals that there is considerable common ground concerning some critical issues between all the presidents, whether they were Democrats or Republicans, ideologically moderate or more partisan. Foremost among these are the beliefs that equal opportunity should be the overarching ideal, work should be rewarded well, and those that cannot help themselves should be supported as generously as possible by the government. I conclude that the 1996 law, while based in part on questionable assumptions concerning the condition of the poor, could lead to a significant re-framing of the debate away from the generally unpopular focus on welfare and welfare recipients and toward the working poor and the conditions and difficulties under which they labor, which could potentially lead to other positive transformations beneficial to the American poor.

Presidential speech has defined some of the greatest moments in American history. However, over the last thirty years the public has grown frustrated with presidential oratory. This project identifies the strategies Reagan, Bush, and Clinton employed to tackle the public’s increasing disenchantment with presidential rhetoric. Using rhetorical analyses of speech drafts, content analyses of weekly radio addresses, and interviews with former presidential speechwriters, this project identified the proactive and reactive ways in which presidents and their speechwriters craft speeches to appeal to a disillusioned public. Results indicate that presidents can employ “executive rhetoric” to appeal to the presidential office and obscure the office-holder. By doing so, presidents can simultaneously preserve the value of speech, and restore—if not expand—presidential power. / text