[PDF] Political Argumentation In The United States eBook
Political Argumentation In The United States Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle version is available to download in english. Read online anytime anywhere directly from your device. Click on the download button below to get a free pdf file of Political Argumentation In The United States book. This book definitely worth reading, it is an incredibly well-written.
In the United States, political argumentation occurs in institutionalized settings and the broader public forum, in efforts to resolve conflict and efforts to foster it, in settings with time limits and controversies that extend over centuries. From the ratification of the U.S. Constitution to the presidency of Barack Obama, this book contains twenty studies of U.S. political argumentation, grouped under four themes: early American political discourse, Abraham Lincoln’s political argumentation, argumentation about foreign policy, and public policy argumentation since the 1960s. Deploying methods of rhetorical criticism, argument analysis and evaluation, the studies are rich in contextual grounding and critical perspective. They integrate the European emphasis on politics as an argumentative context with the U.S. tradition of public address studies. Two essays have never before been published. The others are retrieved from journals and books published between 1979 and 2014. The introductory essay is new for this volume.
This book examines the relationship between the White House, in the person of its press secretary, and the press corps through a linguistic analysis of the language used by both sides. A corpus was compiled of around fifty press briefings from the late Clinton years. A wide range of topics are discussed from the Kosovo crisis to the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. This work is highly original in demonstrating how concordance technology and the detailed linguistic evidence available in corpora can be used to study discourse features of text and the communicative strategies of speakers. It will be of vital interest to all linguists interested in corpus-based linguistics and pragmatics, as well as sociolinguists and students and scholars of communications, politics and the media.
This book contains 20 essays tracing the work of David Zarefsky, a leading North American scholar of argumentation from a rhetorical perspective. The essays cohere around 4 general themes: objectives for studying argumentation rhetorically, approaches to rhetorical study of argumentation, patterns and schemes of rhetorical argumentation, and case studies illustrating the potential of studying argumentation rhetorically. These articles are drawn from across Zarefsky’s 45-year career. Many of these articles originally appeared in publications that are difficult to access today, and this collection brings the reader up to date on the topic. Zarefsky’s scholarship focuses on the role of language in political argumentation, the ways in which argumentation creates public knowledge and belief, the influence of framing and context on what is said and understood, the deployment of particular patterns and schemes of argumentation in public reasoning, and the influence of debate on politics and governance. All these topics are addressed in this book. Each of the conceptual essays includes brief application to specific cases, and five extended case studies are also presented in this volume. The case studies cover different themes: two explore famous political debates, the third focuses on presidential rhetoric across the course of United States history, the fourth on the arguments for liberalism at a time of political polarization, and the fifth on the contemporary effort to engage the United States with the Muslim world. This book is of interest to scholars in the fields of philosophy, logic, law, philosophy of law, and legal history. The range of topics and concepts addressed, the interplay of concepts and cases and the unifying perspective of rhetorical argumentation make this book a valuable read for students of argumentative practice, whether rhetorically or otherwise.
Howard Fineman, one of our most trusted political journalists, shows that every debate, from our nation’s founding to the present day, is rooted in one of thirteen arguments that–thankfully–defy resolution. It is the very process of never-ending argument, Fineman explains, that defines us, inspires us, and keeps us free. At a time when most public disagreement seems shrill and meaningless, Fineman makes a cogent case for nurturing the real American dialogue. The Thirteen American Arguments runs the gamut, including • Who Is a Person? The Declaration of Independence says “everyone,” but it took a Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, and other movements to make that a reality. Now, what about human embryos and prisoners in Guantanamo? • The Role of Faith No country is more legally secular yet more avowedly prayerful. From Thomas Jefferson to James Dobson, the issue persists: Where does God fit in government? • America in the World In Iraq and everywhere else, we ask ourselves whether we must change the world in order to survive and honor our values–or whether the best way to do both is to deal with the world as it is. Whether it’s the nomination of judges or the limits of free speech, presidential power or public debt, the issues that galvanized the Founding Fathers should still inspire our leaders, thinkers, and fellow citizens. If we cease to argue about these things, we cease to be. “Argument is strength, not weakness,” says Fineman. “As long as we argue, there is hope, and as long as there is hope, we will argue.”
Are you frustrated by the constant political debates and arguments you get sucked into with family members, friends, and co-workers? These days, Americans find themselves increasingly engaged in heated, tedious, repetitive, and often vicious political disputes that go nowhere. Has it ever dawned on you that your fiery debates have never changed any minds - and they probably never will? You know how political arguments always go. Your progressive opponent throws out a meaningless propaganda slogan. You counter with a question designed to expose his ignorance and hypocrisy. He knows he can't answer your question with a direct response without losing the argument, so he spits out another completely unrelated propaganda slogan. And every time you back him into another corner he spews time-honored jingles like "George Bush is stupid, Donald Trump is a Nazi," or whatever. It doesn't even occur to you that you never stood a chance of winning his game of, "whack-a-mole" because the target was never fixed. In fact, there never was a target. You lost because you naively believed that the person with the weakest argument - or no argument - would concede defeat, when the real agenda behind his propaganda slogan was simply to weaken your political will and resolve. Does the following conversation sound at all familiar?Progressive: Society should have free (fill in the blank).You: Where are we going to get the money to fund it?Progressive: We can raise taxes on corporations and close loopholes for the rich.You: All that's going to do is shut down investment and shrink the economy, which will diminish tax revenues. Progressive: I don't believe that.You: You don't have to believe it. There are plenty of examples. In fact, France's socialist prime minister implemented the exact plan that you're proposing a few years ago with the imposition of a 75% supertax on the rich - and the result was a stagnant economy, a loss of nearly 2.5 million citizens to other countries, and a paltry sixteen billion dollars in extra revenue that was projected to decline dramatically over the next few years. It was such as dismal failure that he abandoned the plan, which had been the centerpiece of his political campaign, and France reverted to their prior top tax rate of 45%. How do expect the United States government to fund another social program if its tax revenue diminishes because of your proposed crackdown on business and investment?Progressive: Well, it's about fairness. But dude, you gotta admit that your boy, Trump, is crazy. What's with his claim that his Inauguration Day crowd was the biggest in history? I can't believe this guy has access to the nuclear button.And so, once again, you are unwittingly lured down the next rabbit hole. So, what magical solution can possibly allow conservatives to co-exist with progressives without feeling as if they are being robbed? The solution, believe it or not, is quite simple.
Is the state a necessary evil? Or can we hope to evolve beyond it? This book, in the tradition of Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, sheds new light on persistent philosophical questions about the nature and justification of political authority.
In An Argument Open to All, renowned legal scholar Sanford Levinson takes a novel approach to what is perhaps America’s most famous political tract. Rather than concern himself with the authors as historical figures, or how The Federalist helps us understand the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, Levinson examines each essay for the political wisdom it can offer us today. In eighty-five short essays, each keyed to a different essay in The Federalist, he considers such questions as whether present generations can rethink their constitutional arrangements; how much effort we should exert to preserve America’s traditional culture; and whether The Federalist’s arguments even suggest the desirability of world government.
Political Vocabularies: FDR, the Clergy Letters, and the Elements of Political Argument uses a set of letters sent to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 by American clergymen to make a larger argument about the rhetorical processes of our national politics. At any given moment, national politics are constituted by competing political imaginaries, through which citizens understand and participate in politics. Different imaginaries locate political authority in different places, and so political authority is very much a site of dispute between differing political vocabularies. Opposing political vocabularies are grounded in opposing characterizations of the specific political moment, its central issues, and its citizens, for we cannot imagine a political community without populating it and giving it purpose. These issues and people are hierarchically ordered, which provides the imaginary with a sense of internal cohesion and which also is a central point of disputation between competing vocabularies in a specific epoch. Each vocabulary is grounded in a political tradition, read through our national myths, which authorize the visions of national identity and purpose and which contain significant deliberative aspects, for each vision of the nation impels distinct political imperatives. Such imaginaries are our political priorities in action. Taking one specific moment of political change, the author illuminates the larger processes of change, competition, and stability in national politics.