This study examines politics disadvantages used in competitive policy debate. Specifically, this research examines politics disadvantages for their role and relevance in deliberation, an important form of political communication. Deliberation is the means by which citizens can engage in discussions of salient policy issues, and make political judgments about policies. This study developed a grounded theory about the type of deliberation manifest in politics disadvantages. Pre-constructed politics disadvantages from websites such as PlanetDebate.com, Cross-X.com, as well as from summer policy debate workshops were analyzed to develop a grounded theory. Through the process of coding and theoretical memoing, categories of political communication emerged from the disadvantage shells. The theory indicated that politics disadvantages develop an acontextual, narrowly adversarial view of deliberation. This theory was juxtaposed against already established theories of deliberation to reveal that politics disadvantages show serious deficiencies in the ways in which deliberation is taught to policy debaters.

This thesis describes, classifies, analyzes and evaluates the rhetoric of resistance to forced busing to desegregate the Dallas Independent School District during the 1975-1976 school year. This thesis also applies the characteristics of social, protest and agitational movements to the antibusing movement in Dallas to determine the effectiveness of the resistance rhetoric. The findings of this case study demonstrate that, although the Dallas protesters did not achieve all of their goals, their resistance rhetoric did accomplish specific, effective results. However, this thesis also concludes that, in the American system of government, neither violent nor non-violent resistance can prevent implementation of court-ordered busing.

This rhetorical thesis analyzes Richard M. Weaver's theories of rhetoric and his methodology for ranking argument types according to their perceived ethicality. Two keynote speeches by former U. S. Representative Barbara Jordan have been subjected to the Weaverian analysis. Ms. Jordan's argument types are characteristic of what Weaver considered ethical oratory. Weaver's axiological judgments and his dogmatic ranking of the hierarchy have generated some criticism from rhetorical scholars. Although this criticism is justified, Weaver's philosophy and methodology provide insight to a given's orator's philosophical perspective. The Weaverian analysis contributes to the understanding of not only the superficial aspects of an address, but also the underlying and sometimes hidden motivations of an orator.

This study provides a genre analysis of Janet Reno's apologia in response to the Mt. Carmel disaster. Discussions of the events leading up to the crisis, Reno's rhetorical response, and relevant situational constraints and exigencies are provided.

Not available / text

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 237-262). / Also available by subscription via World Wide Web / vii, 262 leaves, bound 29 cm

No description available.

This thesis studies the rhetoric of the Zapatista Revolution and social movement through the analysis of Zapatista messages using the method of cluster criticism. It explores changes in the rhetoric of confrontation and the rhetoric of peace used by the Zapatistas to further their cause during the last ten years of the revolution.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the rhetorical strategies of the Open Convention Movement, a conglomerate of political mavericks who arose during the Democratic Presidential primary campaign of 1980. It consisted of both supporters and antagonists of incumbent President Jimmy Carter, primarily because of opposition to a proposed rule which would have required delegates to the Democratic National Convention to vote, on the first ballot, for the presidential candidate whom they represented in their state-wide primaries.

This study focuses on the rhetoric of racial politics and the ideology of exclusion it produces. This study analyzes the political rhetoric constructed by David Duke, white supremacist, disavowed neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan member, and former Louisiana State Representative. The topics of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, immigration, and welfare were chosen for analysis. Using ideological criticism, this study reveals the role Duke pays in America's increasingly exclusionary political environment. Specifically, this study uses the concepts employed by Louisa Martin Rojo in exploring the rhetorical process of demonization which is used to turn someone or something into an enemy. The process needed to demonize an enemy involves two rhetorical strategies: division and rejection. Division establishes the opposing categories in the conflict, manifesting itself as an arguments between "us verses them" or "good verses evil." Rejection further demonizes the enemy by rhetorically marginalizing, segregating, or creating a negative image about them. Through his rhetoric, Duke strives to provoke feelings of resentment by utilizing demonization to reject and divide whites from minorities. In his rhetoric, Duke excludes people of color from society by portraying affirmative action as minority special privilege, reverse discrimination as white exclusion, welfare as a bastion of illegitimacy, and immigration as the downfall of American culture. Attempting to exclude minorities from society, Duke moves beyond Rojo's concept of demonization and uses scapegoating to blame minorities for America's social ills. By using people of color as a scapegoat, Duke effectively excludes them from participating in the debate over social concerns.