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

In this study, a qualitative rhetorical analysis is done on U.S. president Donald Trump’s crisis communication on Hurricane Maria, which was an Atlantic hurricane that struck areas such as Puerto Rico and Dominica in the autumn of 2017. Given that the former is an unincorporated territory of the U.S., the need for effective relief measures by the Trump administration became of particular importance there. However, in the media, the actual response by the administration was widely criticised as being slow and inefficient by actors like the relief group Oxfam and the humanitarian organisation Refugees International. Therefore, this study critically evaluates Trump’s crisis communication strategies on the hurricane to assess their success. The material consists of statements by Trump in both traditional and social media through official remarks and tweets, which are analysed through the crisis communication theories of image repair theory and situational crisis communication theory. In doing so, of interest is also to examine whether any differences can be seen in the strategies used by Trump in these two kinds of media channels. To address the hurricane, the findings showed that Trump mainly used the crisis communication strategies of corrective action, bolstering, defeasibility and attack accuser from image repair theory and compensation, reminder, ingratiation, excuse and attack the accuser from situational crisis communication theory. Moreover, no distinctive differences were found in which strategies Trump used in the respective channels, even if the attacks on Twitter were often more aggressive. While both positive and negative evaluations could be made of how Trump used these strategies overall, the main conclusion of the study is that his crisis communication was largely ineffective due to the strategies sometimes being contradictory and inconsistent.

The recent upsurge of electoral success from the Brexit Leave campaign and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign 2016, confirm that populist politics has taken a greater role in Europe and in the U.S. The purpose of this research is to see to what extent each of the two campaigns are populist, and whether their statements are similar to each other. This will increase further knowledge about the populist phenomenon and its complexity. Hence, comparative analyses of six speeches from Brexit’s Leave campaign and Trump’s presidential campaign have been conducted through the framework of Mudde’s minimal definition of populism. The results show that both campaigns have populist features and that they have some commonalities, but still vary in the details, due to the countries’ historical, social and economic backgrounds. The two campaigns’ representatives are using similar populist strategies in order to reach their audiences. It is further recommended to expand this research and examine Trump’s presidency and its impacts with the UK’s process of leaving and its outcomes, which will provide a further understanding of the populist upsurge as well as its consequences.

This essay aims to analyze how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump communicated verbally and non-verbally during the second presidential debate of the 2016 US election. To do this the essay utilizes a method focused on analyzing actio. The essay also analyses main trends in the rhetoric’s of the candidates. To aid the findings from this analysis the essay takes support from theories such as Impression management, footing, face as well as different theories in representation, including stereotypes, gender in politics and the construction of otherness.   The results that the study reached where that very little critic could be raised towards Clinton's actio except for questioning how effective her choice to face the live audience instead of the tv audience was. That only a few major errors could be found in Clinton's actio & her rhetoric as well, was theorized to be due to the stark contrast of her errors against Trump's which many times where a lot worse. The study also found some similarities in how to candidates used similar rhetorical and, to some extent, actio techniques to compel their audience, thou stark differences could be found in the execution of said techniques. Further the study could not point to any definite female or male use of body language, but theorized that this is due to the nature of a political debate and how Clinton might have adapted to the male dominated world of politics. Finally, in the end discussion a speculation was raised that whoever the audience perceived as a “winner” of the debate came down largely to pre-perceived notions of each candidate at least when it came to body language and rhetoric.

許多文獻已經研究過政治事件和外匯市場之間的關聯性。然而，較少研究聚焦在一個國家的政治事件是如何影響另外一個國家的匯率。因此，本文章主要在探討2016美國總統大選如何影響墨西哥幣兌美元的走勢。我們使用EGARCH 模型來衡量美國總統候選人的民調對匯率的平均或波動所造成的影響。實證結果發現美國總統大選會對墨西哥幣兌美元產生較大的波動，希拉蕊的民調增加也會造成墨西哥幣的升值。因此，本文檢驗政治活動會對外匯市場產生影響的假說，也進一步提出實證結果支持一國的匯率會受到他國政治因素牽動的看法。 / Many articles have shown the relationship between political events and currency markets. Nevertheless, few studies provide empirical evidence on how one country’s political elections have impact on movements of exchange rate in other country. In this paper, we attempt to provide some empirical results by analyzing the impact of the 2016 United States presidential election on Mexico’s currency market. We use EGARCH models to estimate the influence of recent U.S. presidential candidates have on the mean and the variance of the Mexican foreign exchange market. We find statistically significant evidence that U.S. presidential election is associated with higher volatility of Mexico’s currency market, and the increase in the chance for a Clinton to win has positive impact on mean return of the peso-dollar exchange rate. These findings offer important insights into the expected impact of the United States presidential elections on the Mexican peso and more generally, the relationship between political events and foreign exchange market.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the use of conceptual metaphors in political speeches by Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. Conceptual metaphor theory is applied as the framework for the study. Metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified with help of the method Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP). The conceptual metaphors giving rise to the metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified and categorized into different domains in the study. The analysis demonstrates that the use of metaphors is ubiquitous. The metaphors related to the salient domains of politics, nation, immigration, economy, and morality are discussed and further investigated in the analysis. The analysis shows that metaphors are employed in the construction of populist discourse and to evoke the emotion of fear by mainly drawing from embodied elements. A notable parallel between Trump and Farage is the use of the Moral Order metaphor which subsequently reveal their moral values.

This study aims to observe linguistic disparities in the distribution of the conversational dominance strategies interruptions, amount of talk, and questions in the first U.S. 2020 presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Subsequently, these findings establish the evaluation of how the interactive phenomena relate to the masculinity conceptualizations of hegemonic masculinity and subordination. To examine the study objective, the methodology conducted was a discourse analysis of the debate transcript. Hence, the method intended to measure to which extent Biden and Trump employed interruptions, amount of talk, and questions during the debate. The outcome of the review established the discursive dominance framework used to discuss how the presidential candidates demonstrated adherence to diverse masculinities’ conceptualizations. The discourse analysis outcome revealed an asymmetrical distribution of the interactive phenomena across all variables measured in favor of Donald Trump. These results suggest that Trump’s discursive performance signaled adherence to hegemonic masculinity norms to a greater extent than Biden through employing more conversational dominance strategies during the debate. Consequently, Biden’s discursive performance indicated closer relations to masculine subordination than Trump’s performance.

No description available.

This master's thesis deals with the implications of metaphorical language, which comedy news programs used to portray Donald Trump as a candidate during the 2016 US presidential election. First, the author outlines the most important moments of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, then introduces the comedy news genre as well as three comedy news programs - The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight and Real Time - which are included in the analytical part of the thesis. The thesis continues with the theoretical and methodological chapters, in which conceptual metaphor analysis based on the works of Lakoff, Johnson and Yanow is presented. The metaphor analysis itself, performed on 73 comedy news episodes, reveals that mostly the same metaphors were used across all three programs and they overwhelmingly portray Donald Trump as non-human. As the election kept approaching, Donald Trump was increasingly portrayed as "a natural disaster," "the apocalypse" or "the Devil." The author suggests that the overall tacit objective of the metaphors used in the three comedy news programs was to dehumanize Donald Trump. Finally, the limitations of the analysis are discussed and suggestions for further research on the implications of metaphorical language are made.

The aim of this thesis is to look for paralels in reactions and attitudes of Czech and American media towards offensive statements of presidents of the Czech Republic and USA with the focus on mainstream media. In a theoretical part of the thesis the role and function of media in liberal democracies are defined. Following part describes an actual media landscapes of USA and the Czech Republic. The main part - research, is based on the description of the media landscapes in both countries and analyzes the media reactions and attitudes towards one specific presidential statement (one by US president Donald Trump, one by Czech president Milos Zeman). Each statement had to be at most critical, attacking the media and had to raise high media response. Media reactions were afterwards analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to the principles of grounded theory. In the conclusion the categories given by the analysis are being compared and analyzed.