University of Denver Undergraduate Research Journal
A Thematic Analysis of How a Rhetor and a Demagogue Framed Their Presidencies
Megan Cooney1 , Shaundi Newbolt2 1 Student Contributor, University of Denver 2 Advisor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Denver
Abstract This essay uses thematic analysis through the lens of framing theory to dissect how former U.S. President Barack Obama and former U.S. President Donald Trump created contrasting but successful frameworks of America to win their campaigns. The paper operates on the grounds that Obama is a rhetor and Trump is a demagogue. Frames consummate a multitude of themes that are created with rhetorical tools – namely figurative language. The storylines that are created by politicians can play an instrumental role in developing the constituent’s basis of reality. This study aims to unpack how a rhetor and a demagogue can use the same rhetorical tools to forge a successful framework for their audiences. The paper starts by establishing a basis of rhetoric, political rhetoric, and demagoguery. After creating that foundation, it leads into a thematic analysis of Obama’s 2013 Inaugural Address and Trump’s 2017 Inaugural Address, through themes of community, religion, and the future of America. The results reveal that the strength of their address’s relied on the framework used. Both presidents used the same themes to create differing realities of America, regardless of the morality of the speaker. This study provides further inquiry into Communication Studies research on how rhetors and demagogues use linguistics to persuade their audiences. Keywords: Political rhetoric, demagoguery, rhetor, framing, figurative language
1 INTRODUCTION Figurative language as a rhetorical tool in political speech is well acknowledged for its ability to evoke intense emotion and push the audience towards the rhetor’s belief1 . This study aims to fill the gap in Communication Studies research when considering how persuasive appeals of language can be used by a rhetor and demagogue to successfully frame vastly different narratives within the political landscape. The differentiating factors between the orator’s are revealed by their intent and moral character. The objectives of this paper are to better understand how a rhetor and demagogue use the same tools to shape contrasting realities for their audiences to win the presidency, so the public can become more adept at noticing a demagogue before they rise to power. Communication Studies scholars can then help to restructure the dialogue around political speech and the public’s consumption of it. This study will dissect political speech within modern politics, uncovering 1 As noted by researchers in the article “Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony” 1 . Their work unpacks the influence of persuasive appeals on the public.
Obama and Trump’s starkly different frameworks. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Rhetoric and ethics are closely aligned, and it is beneficial to first garner insight into that relationship with the use of previous works. James A. Herrick’s essay “Rhetoric, ethics, and virtue” explores how one might ground an ethics of rhetoric in virtues by practicing rhetoric itself 2 . His research acknowledged that rhetoric has a long tradition of being linked to virtue or human character. Someone’s rhetoric may be seen as “a reflection of the person’s character 2 .” Herrick pulled from Aristotle’s perception that part of a rhetors duty is to help his readers “to become good 2 .” Most importantly, it is argued that advocacy is a good inherent to rhetoric, which is critical in maintaining democratic institutions 2 . The author establishes a premise for how rhetoric should be viewed in conjunction with ethics. This is essential to note because, within this definition, a rhetor must deploy a strong moral character 2 ; however, there is more to be considered when dealing with the persuasive appeals of ill-intended agents.