This essay will examine the inauguration speech of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. The aim is to analyze how political psychology can affect the design of the speeches and how globalization and nationalism can help understand what they really say in their speeches and what underlaying messages might be found. By doing qualitative ideational analyzes of the speeches, it is found that political psychology may affect the design of the speeches regarding the presidents’ personal backgrounds and the aim to create emotions with the citizens. Globalization and nationalism can be found in different ways in each president’s inauguration speech.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Работа посвящена созданию и апробированию исследовательской модели, позволяющей описать языковую личность кандидатов Дональда Трампа и Джозефа Байдена во время предвыборной кампании 2019-2020 гг.. Материалом для исследованиями послужили транскрипты публичных выступлений Джозефа Байдена и Дональда Трампа во временном промежутке президентской кампании 2019-2020 гг. с сайта www.rev.com. Данный ресурс содержит все публичные выступления кандидатов и предоставляет полноценный корпус текстов речей. В первой части работы рассматриваются основные направления в речевом портретировании, риторической критике, концептуальном анализе. Предлагается интегративная методика речевого портретирования, включающая в себя концептуальный и стилистический уровни. Особое внимание уделяется различным аспектам в создании речевого портрета. Во второй части работы выявляются, описываются и классифицируются доминантные концепты и средства стилистической выразительности в речи каждого из кандидатов. Также проводится сопоставительный анализ на каждом уровне исследования. Особое внимание уделяется эмотивному компоненту лингвостилистического анализа. Доминантными концептами Дж. Байдена являются: «коронавирус», «единство», «свой человек». Доминантными концептами Д. Трампа: «демократическая партия», «фэйк ньюс», «военные силы». Доминантными средствами стилистической выразительности кандидата Байдена являются: метафора, повтор, противопоставление, эпитет. Доминантные средства стилистической выразительности кандидата Трампа представлены риторическими вопросами, сослагательными конструкциями и эпитетами. Результаты исследования могут быть использованы в ряде курсов и дисциплин академического цикла: политической лингвистики, лингвоконцептологии, лингвостилистики, лингвистической персонологии, дискурсологии. / The work is devoted to the creation and testing of a research model that allows describing the linguistic personality of candidates Donald Trump and Joseph Biden during the 2019-2020 election campaign. The research material was comprised by transcripts of public speeches by Joseph Biden and Donald Trump during the 2019-2020 presidential campaign from the website www.rev.com. This resource contains all public speeches of candidates and provides a full-fledged corpus of speech texts. In the first part of the work, the main directions in speech portraiture, rhetorical criticism, and conceptual analysis are considered. An integrative method of speech portraiture is proposed, which includes conceptual and stylistic levels. Special attention is paid to various aspects in creating a speech portrait. In the second part of the work, the dominant concepts and means of stylistic expressiveness in the speech of each of the candidates are identified, described and classified. A comparative analysis is also carried out at each level of the study. Special attention is paid to the emotive component of linguistic-stylistic analysis. The dominant concepts of J. Biden's words are: "coronavirus", "unity", "your own person". The dominant concepts of D. Trump are: "the Democratic party", "fake news", "military forces". The dominant means of stylistic expressiveness of candidate Biden are: metaphor, repetition, opposition, epithet. The dominant means of stylistic expressiveness of Candidate Trump are represented by rhetorical questions, subjunctive constructions and epithets. The results of the research can be used in a number of courses and disciplines of the academic cycle: political linguistics, linguistic conceptology, linguistic stylistics, linguistic personology, discursology.

What explains the difference between the county level vote received by President Donald Trump and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio in the 2016 Florida general election? Over the last couple of decades, Florida has earned a reputation for being a highly competitive state that impacts control of the White House and congress. As Florida’s electorate becomes increasingly diverse, will the Democratic Party begin to win more often as their usual base grows, or will the Republican Party figure out a way to remain competitive? The 2016 general election presents an opportunity to analyze the structure of support for two Republican candidates who represent different paths for the future of the Republican Party: Trump, who won Florida by just one percent, and seemingly alienated Hispanics and women with his comments and policy proposals; or Rubio, who won by about eight percent, a Cuban-American thought to be a fresh voice for the GOP and a bridge to Hispanic voters. Regression analysis is used to examine support for Trump and Rubio and also the difference in support between the candidates. The results indicate Trump did better in counties with larger percentages of lower educated whites, lower income households, and higher unemployment rate. Rubio performed better than Trump in counties with larger numbers of Cuban and non-Cuban Hispanics, women, and voters not registered with either major party. These results suggest that Democrats may gain ground in Florida over time if the Trump wing of the GOP takes over the party and if current population trends continue.

The subject of this bachelor thesis in political science has been to study how populistic rhetoric has evolved as a political phenomenon. The study has more specifically researched how presidential candidates have used populism in presidential debates. The bachelor thesis also studied if populistic rhetoric has changed over a time period between 1960 to 2016. To be able to study this, the essay has used critical discourse analysis to develop and understand how populism works. Ernesto Laclau’s On Populist Reason has also been used to create three models of understanding populism to develop the essays framework.  Through this the study has found that populistic rhetoric has come to be used more frequently in presidential debates. The study has also found that populistic rhetoric has changed form into a more aggressive style of rhetoric targeting the opponent’s character instead of the individual’s style of politics.

This essay utilizes Speech Act Theory to assess Donald Trump’s role in inciting the riot that took place in Washington D.C. on the 6th of January, 2021 and culminated with the attack on the Capitol building. For the purposes of the study a corpus was created with tweets collected from the Trump Twitter Archive. The tweets cover the span between the latest presidential election, on the 3rd of November, 2020, to the day of the attack. The corpus was read manually and sorted into themes. The themes that emerged show that: a) Trump was convinced of his victory, b) felt that the election was rigged, c) accused news networks, the Democrats and even prominent Republicans for his loss, and d) called the people for action. A quantitative method that identified the most common words in the corpus corroborated the identification of the described themes. The themes were compared to Speech Act Theory’s felicitous conditions for directive speech acts. The study found that Trump’s tweets satisfy the conditions for the successful directive speech acts of Order and Command, thus providing grounds to make the case that he was responsible for inciting the attack.

There is currently a global trend of democratic backsliding. The term democratic backsliding refers to the process in which a country undergoes a transition towards more authoritarian values and behavior. This process can weaken the democratic norms and institutions and can occur in democratic, hybrid, and nondemocratic regimes. Many countries around the world have been displaying nondemocratic tendencies for decades, but democratic backsliding is also transpiring in countries that have been democratic for an extended period of time. One country that has experienced forms of democratic backsliding is the United States of America, especially under the presidency of Donald Trump. The aim of this essay is to determine what authoritarian behavior Donald Trump engaged in during his presidential term from 2016 to 2020.  The theory on democratic backsliding by Bermeo as well as the four warning signs of authoritarian behavior by Levitsky and Ziblatt will be applied to conduct the research. The study is a qualitative case study, investigating each year of Donald Trump’s presidency. The results of this study indicate that Donald Trump did engage in authoritarian behavior during his presidential term.

The current president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been identified as the reason for a large shift in American foreign policy towards a doctrine closer to that of political realism. This claim has led us to examine if this transformation could be detected and described if we analyzed and compared Trump’s foreign policy doctrine with his predecessor, Barack Obama, through the lens Thomas Hobbes, whose ideas are at the core of the three modern schools of political realism. Accordingly, in this thesis, we deduce an analytical framework from the original corpus of Hobbes, where anarchy is divided into moral and empirical variables, identified as the primary factors for behavior in international settings. This is then applied inductively via a comparative qualitative content analysis to two primary documents, the National Security Strategies of 2010 containing the foreign policy doctrine of Obama, and the National Security Strategy of 2017 containing the doctrine of Trump. Our thesis shows a large shift in how the Presidents view the world in moral terms, or how they see it fit for the American executive to act on the international stage. And a relatively minor shift in empirical terms, or their perception of the foundational reality of the world system which they both consider to be of an anarchical nature closely connected to the theoretical model presented by our interpretation of Hobbes