Collective memory, political nostalgia, and the rhetorical presidency: Bill Clinton's commemoration of the March on Washington, August 28, 1998

Abstract

This essay offers a reading of President Bill Clinton's address on A ugust 28, 1998 in which he commemorates the 35th anniversary of the March on Washington. Specifically, Clinton's August 28th address reveals how the presidency has become a hermeneutic site for the formation of collective memory and political nostalgia. This analysis discusses the uses of political nostalgia for the purposes of political image (re)construction as evidenced by Clinton's exploitation of the civil rights movement to explain and excuse his personal failings and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. We also present a divergent version of Clinton's rhetoric, giving specific attention to how his particular use of nostalgia in this address works to articulate and confront many of the powerful dichotomies (masculine/feminine; war/peace; black/white; private/public) that define his presidency, his public persona, and the larger political culture in postmodern America.

Language and Politics in Post-Soviet Russia

“…The significant rhetorical effects offered by nostalgic narrative (Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles, 2000) make it a popular tool with other political leaders and the president in particular. 130 This chapter continues a corpus-assisted analysis of political discourse by providing a critical exploration of metaphor use in Putin's political speeches.…”

Speaking at Selma: Presidential Commemoration and Bill Clinton's Problem of Invention

“…Such purpose is perhaps nowhere as obvious as it is when U.S. presidents commemorate. In the United States, as Shawn Parry‐Giles and Trevor Parry‐Giles () have noted, “no other individual possesses authority and power to influence public memory more then the (p)resident … (Presidents) become, in a powerful sense, the chief interpreters of collective memory” (419). Mary Stuckey () has suggested that this interpretive function is one of the primary requirements of the job itself.…”

“…As I have suggested elsewhere (Beasley ), most iterations of presidential rhetoric can be read as serving a constitutive function, perpetually attempting to create an idea of “the people” with collective identity and common cause. Parry‐Giles and Parry‐Giles () have argued that “the rhetorical presidency is fundamentally concerned with the formation and demarcation of American values—the cultural ideology that defines the very ontological nature of the community” (419). If a primary function of this discourse is to tell the American people both who they were and also who they should continue to be, we might not be surprised that presidential commemorations have tended to reinforce a willfully normative version of American national identity—that is, the notion that the ideal citizens of the past were presumptively white and/or male and/or heterosexual and/or able‐bodied and/or property‐owning—to elide diversity in fairly predictable ways.…”

“…Another persuasive example comes from Parry‐Giles and Parry‐Giles' () reading of President Clinton's 1998 commemoration of the thirty‐fifth anniversary of the March on Washington. They argue that the president used political nostalgia surrounding the civil rights movement as a frame—or, perhaps better, a screen—“to explain and excuse his personal failings and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky,” an extramarital affair that led to his impeachment in 1998 (Parry‐Giles and Parry‐Giles , 417). The authors consider how Clinton's choices exploited both the memory and the spirit of the movement being commemorated, suggesting a normative turn in the criticism echoing Bostdorff's.…”

Skyfall, James Bond's Resurrection, and 21st-Century Anglo-American Imperial Nostalgia

“…The Cultural, Communicative, and Political Significance of Imperial Nostalgia Studies for Today's Audiences Communication scholars have already studied the therapeutic (Depoe, 1990;Smith, 2000), and political roles that nostalgia 1 plays in nationalist contexts (Janack, 1999;Hasian, 2001;Parry-Giles & Parry-Giles, 1998), and I suggest here that we add to our understanding of this phenomenon by decoding how imperial nostalgias appear in 21st-century productions that represent ideological positions on the global war on terrorism (GWOT). Stoler (2008) contended that when scholars study interventions like the invasion of Iraq or other facets of the GWOT, they cannot help noticing that public domains start filling up with the ''familiar frame of imperial beneficence and defense' ' (p. 191), and she remarked that the debris of empires past become parts of ''a vocabulary'' that is ''bound to the urgent themes of security, preparedness, states of emergency, and exception that are so current today' ' (p. 192).…”